These stories about protestors being arrested are not just very bad, but also very weird. Who even wants this? Who gains? The whole point of a defanged constitutional monarchy is that being for it or against it makes no difference to anything.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
But is it permissible for someone else to provide, for instance, a Glasgow kiss?
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
They're on the run.
Oh it will, republicans are typically highly educated Labour voters living in big cities. With that comes a certain form of elitist sneering snobbery at the working classes and lower middle classes and those that live in suburbia, towns and villages that voted Leave and like the monarchy. The monarchy as an institution is far more popular than foxhunting.
King William and King George and King George's son or daughter will have coronations long after you are dead
I would be willing to bet that the British monarchy will no longer be an established thing in the next 100 years.
Neither of you will be there to collect, whoever wins!
Er, he didn't say in 2122 - just any time in the next 100 years, as the next Commonwealth (sensu O. Cromwell) will suffice to fulfil the bet. So some chance of collecting, after all!
No private punter will take the bet though as they wouldnt be around to collect. And ive thought the odds at a bookies wouldnt be attractive
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
And just for clarity, my views above are definitely 'elite' views. HYUFD is right on this: those with postgraduate degrees who WFH and sit at a keyboard are way, way more likely to be uncomfortable with a monarchy than those further down the social scale for whom, frankly, absract constitutional questions tend to be of less interest than making it through the month. Here, for once, I am slightly more typical of my peers.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
Is it acceptable to punch anyone being a bellend at any time? Because if so, lots of people will need to start learning how to dodge a punch.
If someone is being a bellend, the consequence should be "oi, mate, stop being a bellend". And if that person doesn't stop being a bellend, they will probably be socially ostracised, or "cancelled". They don't need to be punched in the face and thrown to the floor, and it is certainly unacceptable that after being punched in the face and thrown to the floor they are the one being held by the police and not those who assaulted him.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
But is it permissible for someone else to provide, for instance, a Glasgow kiss?
Probably not. But, heckling a funeral cortege is a bit like the behaviour of Westborough Baptist Church. They have the right to proclaim God Hates Fags when someone dies of AIDS, but no one's going to have much sympathy if they get a rough reaction.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
See, that is actual constructive criticism, and useful.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to act like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of being a bellend, either.
Well it should actually, to the extent that "consequences" is an attempt to commit an offence against the person against you. if that's not what the police are for what is?
2 possibilities, one of which is protests are being visibly cracked down on now to discourage misconduct on funeral day (which is bad enough), the other is that this is the new normal. I'm simply unexcited about the monarchist debate, I like Anee and Zara and the rest are a bunch of wombats, but if jovially shouting at fat pedo boy is going to result in being dragged to the dungeons I want them all gone yesterday.
These stories about protestors being arrested are not just very bad, but also very weird. Who even wants this? Who gains? The whole point of a defanged constitutional monarchy is that being for it or against it makes no difference to anything.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
But is it permissible for someone else to provide, for instance, a Glasgow kiss?
Probably not. But, heckling a funeral cortege is a bit like the behaviour of Westborough Baptist Church. They have the right to proclaim God Hates Fags when someone dies of AIDS, but no one's going to have much sympathy if they get a rough reaction.
It's not about having sympathy or not, it's about enforcing the law.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
That's a standard Labour shibboleth. But in Scotland the Labour Party is very much an ally of the Conservative Party when it comes to local government, joint anti-independence campaigns, and so on. So it's scrabbling in the same Unionist pool as the Tories.
What the SNP represents is a solid block of guaranteed anti-Tory social democratic votes - which basically saves Labour from making a serious effort to gain the social democratic vote and [edit] allows it to try and focus on the Unionist vote. Which it does badly, in competition with the Tories, in Scotland.
It greatly reduces the need of Labour UK wide to gain a majority, because the SNP neutralises a chunk of the Tory Party.
YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
It is a proxy moment. Many miss her and grieve for her as they see public outpourings for the nations mother and grandmother and the actual m and gm of the royals and think of their own that have passed away. Or they weep for the passing of times they now miss dearly, for joys that we may not know again. And there is uncertainty as certainty and permanence flies away. For others its a WTF?! A weird time and the perfect storm for us all to release that which we have kept inside as we ploughed on through Covid and any other number of nonsenses and trials. The nation has not known a moment like it in a very long time. George VI, Winnie and Diana the only possible similies
I were nobbut a lad, but I really don't remember a carry on like this when George VI died.
There wasn't the coverage. No social media, no 24/7 news. It all happened just most did not see most of it. Even our emotionsl responses are nearly public property now in the SM age
I don't remember the same level of coverage in the press either.
The only direct comparison is newspapers though, they are pretty much an irrelevance now compared to TV and SM Edit - by which i mean they might as well go full tonto they have no 'informing' role any more
We are having some work done on the house; a wet room installed. The fitters are starting on Wednesday and the job is scheduled to take six days. Someone from the company rang early this morning asking if we minded them working on Monday. We said no; first of all we don't mind, and secondly we need the job done, not half finished for three days.
Good on you OKC
I shall be going on a long hike in the wilderness Monday, far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife.
Which reminds me, you don't need a mobile signal for OS Maps or Outdoors GB. It runs off GPS. Even tracks you in airplane mode.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Statement from the Met on this - she was asked to move away from Carriage Gates to "facilitate vehicle access and egress through the gates, she was not arrested and was not asked to leave the wider area"
POLICE Scotland have questions to answer over their policing of anti-monarchist protests over the weekend, critics have said after fears were sparked the force was cracking down on freedom of speech.
Concerns have been raised since a woman was arrested and charged on Sunday with allegedly breaching the peace by carrying a sign which read: “F*** imperialism. Abolish the monarchy”. She has been released from custody and is due in court at a later date.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
You're misdiagnosing this with your pet issue. It's not republicans that are being targeted, it's any sort of speech that might cause offence. This time round it's republicans, the last few goes it's been people who don't buy into the idea of gender and sex being the same thing, before that it was fathers for justice etc...
In this country we've got into this twisted situation where people can be arrested for simply saying something unpleasant to another person. The reaction "I'm offended" seems to warrant a police investigation and eventual arrest of the "perpetrator".
If, like me, you want free speech and free right to protest for these people today, then you should support the free speech and free right to protest of every other group.
The tories need to get back to where they were a decade ago, where they rolled back some of this stuff. What has happened in the intervening time is a creeping culture within the police and other parts of the public sector where these laws are used to achieve various fashionable political ends, politicians have been happy to go along with it - mainly because they have been captured by the 'equalities' agenda ,which now reaches its most absurd extreme with the trans stuff.
Free speech definetly has to apply universally, not just free speech for things you agree with.
Since you are mostly discussing your monarchy, may I ask an obvious question: Queen Elizabeth II appears from this distance to have several nicknames, mostly used affectionately. What about Charles III? Any widely accepted nicknames? If so, are they mostly affectionate?
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
If Lab and SNP can make a majority and the Tories can't make a governing majority, Lab can just dare the SNP to vote down their budget sans negotiation. Should the SNP vote down a Lab budget, a new GE will be called, and Lab can argue that the SNP have no interest in keeping Tories out of national government, and only using the Tories as a punching bag for independence. Whether or not that makes them Tory allies is another thing, but I don't see them falling into that trap - they will vote for the minimum legislation / budget necessary to keep Labour in government, but make every legislative act a tooth pulling exercise until Labour negotiate.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
But is it permissible for someone else to provide, for instance, a Glasgow kiss?
Probably not. But, heckling a funeral cortege is a bit like the behaviour of Westborough Baptist Church. They have the right to proclaim God Hates Fags when someone dies of AIDS, but no one's going to have much sympathy if they get a rough reaction.
I think a week-long funeral cortege is going beyond a funeral and is something more like the Olympic flame, a political statement. Regardless, the Westboro people are intimating that being gay is a death penalty from a god, whereas the other is criticising the presence of an extremely shady man at a week-long political event.
Since you are mostly discussing your monarchy, may I ask an obvious question: Queen Elizabeth II appears from this distance to have several nicknames, mostly used affectionately. What about Charles III? Any widely accepted nicknames? If so, are they mostly affectionate?
I've heard people just call him Charley. But there is less affection for him, so no? Someone at work jokingly referred to him as King Chaz; that got a laugh.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
Just noticed this: it was during the funereal element, not the proclamation. And is nothing to do with republicanism either (one assumes). Very inappropriate for someone at his mother's funeral.
A 22-year-old man was dragged off by members of the public after the outburst.
A video shot at the scene shows the man being pulled out of the crowd before falling to the floor.
He is then picked up by a police officer who leads him away from the scene before a voice off-camera shouts: “Disgusting."
A police spokesperson said: “A 22-year-old man was arrested in connection with a breach of the peace on the Royal Mile around 2.50pm on Monday, September 12, 2022."
Okay. That's not what we were talking about, but let's talk about it.
A hearse with the Queen's body and her son, someone who went through a very public stint of being credibly accused of having sex with someone underage and trafficked, got shouted at for that very thing. A thing the Queen spent millions on defending.
Are we citizens, or subjects? Is a Prince above reproach?
In another video, from another angle, what we see is that the young man says that and two men in the crowd try and deck him, and then the police detain him rather than those assaulting him. What does that say? Who really caused a public disturbance or a breach of the peace there? Because the free speech brigade here would argue all points should be listened to and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, unless it's republicanism or criticism of your betters, then get decked or get hanged.
The thing is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you want to behaving like a bellend, the State should not prevent you from doing so, but there's no reason for the State to shield you from the consequences of behaving like a bellend, either.
But is it permissible for someone else to provide, for instance, a Glasgow kiss?
Probably not. But, heckling a funeral cortege is a bit like the behaviour of Westborough Baptist Church. They have the right to proclaim God Hates Fags when someone dies of AIDS, but no one's going to have much sympathy if they get a rough reaction.
It's interesting this is still being debated after I've spent a whole day at work.
There's a whole world of difference between an individual performing a silent protest by holding up a sign saying 'Republic Now' and someone screaming abuse at a funeral cortege.
Both are "free speech" but I'd expect the latter to be dealt with as a public order offence as, quite rightly, as we have laws for public decency and nuisance, in the same way you have the right to do what you like with your property but can't hold a very loud private party all-night long in your property that disturbs the peace.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
Sure
Charles n Co are on a pretty knifey knife edge though, we've already had inkpotgate and paternalaffectiongate from 2 senior players, both really dreadful looks, and it 's only day 5. Test matches used to last longer, in the old days.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Since you are mostly discussing your monarchy, may I ask an obvious question: Queen Elizabeth II appears from this distance to have several nicknames, mostly used affectionately. What about Charles III? Any widely accepted nicknames? If so, are they mostly affectionate?
Chas is a simple elision.
Only other one I can think of, though I don't use it, is Big Ears [from a Noddy character in an Enid Blyton series]. Obvious reason.
"It gets worse. Perhaps they spout pointless opinions. Maybe they make a fuss about whether pineapple belongs on pizza or their dislike of the word “moist”."
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
Should it be legal to protest against the accession of a new monarch? Yes.
Has there ever been a time where this was not a highly controversial, political act? No
Am I surprised that the police act as they do? No. The reason might be new, but protesters would have been moved along at any point in the last 1000 years. It's just more transparent today.
Are these protesters making a serious point, or self promoting egotists? I will let you decide.
A moderately interesting question is what would happen if the new monarch was a tyrant that no-one liked.
One complication I suspect the police have had to wrestle with is the possible reaction to the protestor by the majority of the crowd if the police don’t move them away. I’d be worried for their safety.
But that doesn't mean they should be arrested. If the unacceptable behaviour is people attacking vocal republicans, the cops shouldn't then be allowed to just attack vocal republicans. If vocally being republican is a crime, then just say that. But if we admit that to be true, we might have to look in the mirror about the society we live in, and we're not very good with that.
You're misdiagnosing this with your pet issue. It's not republicans that are being targeted, it's any sort of speech that might cause offence. This time round it's republicans, the last few goes it's been people who don't buy into the idea of gender and sex being the same thing, before that it was fathers for justice etc...
In this country we've got into this twisted situation where people can be arrested for simply saying something unpleasant to another person. The reaction "I'm offended" seems to warrant a police investigation and eventual arrest of the "perpetrator".
If, like me, you want free speech and free right to protest for these people today, then you should support the free speech and free right to protest of every other group.
The tories need to get back to where they were a decade ago, where they rolled back some of this stuff. What has happened in the intervening time is a creeping culture within the police and other parts of the public sector where these laws are used to achieve various fashionable political ends, politicians have been happy to go along with it - mainly because they have been captured by the 'equalities' agenda ,which now reaches its most absurd extreme with the trans stuff.
Free speech definetly has to apply universally, not just free speech for things you agree with.
I would say it started with Blair(s).
In reality, it’s probably always been there, just I wasn’t alive or conscious of it.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
There was a thread on it in the last couple of days. 51% supporting the concept of a leader who could get on without bothering about parliament or elections Edit - 2 threads ago
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
I am doubtful of your assertion that English has more monosyllabic words useful for deflating pomposity than other languages. Any evidence for this assertion? Similarly your assumed relationship between linguistic structure and political system seems implausible. If you can provide evidence for either it would be great.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Since you are mostly discussing your monarchy, may I ask an obvious question: Queen Elizabeth II appears from this distance to have several nicknames, mostly used affectionately. What about Charles III? Any widely accepted nicknames? If so, are they mostly affectionate?
I called him Prince Chuckles (not to his face, obvs...) and I do so affectionately. I think. Now it'll have to be King Chuckles the Third. And I daresay some will change the last word into tu*d...
Since you are mostly discussing your monarchy, may I ask an obvious question: Queen Elizabeth II appears from this distance to have several nicknames, mostly used affectionately. What about Charles III? Any widely accepted nicknames? If so, are they mostly affectionate?
Not aware of any HMQ nicknames in general use, shewas mostly just the queen. PB is more creative in this regard than most, I haven't recovered from the shock of seeing the Prince and Princess of Wales referred to as Baldy n Death's Head, which may have misled you.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Last week's poll. Apparently, taking the two polls together, young people want the symbolic head of state to be elected, but the executive head of state to be a dictator.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Since you are mostly discussing your monarchy, may I ask an obvious question: Queen Elizabeth II appears from this distance to have several nicknames, mostly used affectionately. What about Charles III? Any widely accepted nicknames? If so, are they mostly affectionate?
Not aware of any HMQ nicknames in general use, shewas mostly just the queen. PB is more creative in this regard than most, I haven't recovered from the shock of seeing the Prince and Princess of Wales referred to as Baldy n Death's Head, which may have misled you.
The Eye used to use 'Brenda' though I don't recall hearing it in real life. Her consort was quite widely known as Phil the Greek - I seem to recall hearing it in Bristol c. 1985.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
That's a standard Labour shibboleth. But in Scotland the Labour Party is very much an ally of the Conservative Party when it comes to local government, joint anti-independence campaigns, and so on. So it's scrabbling in the same Unionist pool as the Tories.
What the SNP represents is a solid block of guaranteed anti-Tory social democratic votes - which basically saves Labour from making a serious effort to gain the social democratic vote and [edit] allows it to try and focus on the Unionist vote. Which it does badly, in competition with the Tories, in Scotland.
It greatly reduces the need of Labour UK wide to gain a majority, because the SNP neutralises a chunk of the Tory Party.
This is very much to Labour's advantage.
Thing is that Labour don't want to pay the price the SNP would demand for C&S. That and the mere prospect of one is used by the Tories to frighten voters south of the border. Labour is clearly betting the SNP are too afraid to stop/bring down a Labour minority government and abstain on a King's Speech, letting Starmer walk into No10.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
We could add the equivalent of a "recall petition", with very high thresholds to allow for the disastrous monarchs. Perhaps 25% of the electorate to sign the petition triggers a vote at which it needs two thirds of those who vote to remove them, and next in line takes over.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Vote SNP, get Truss!
I think all who assume this forget the detailed mechanics of the parliament and how the situation will develop.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Vote SNP, get Truss!
I think all who assume this forget the detailed mechanics of the parliament and how the situation will develop.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
That's a standard Labour shibboleth. But in Scotland the Labour Party is very much an ally of the Conservative Party when it comes to local government, joint anti-independence campaigns, and so on. So it's scrabbling in the same Unionist pool as the Tories.
What the SNP represents is a solid block of guaranteed anti-Tory social democratic votes - which basically saves Labour from making a serious effort to gain the social democratic vote and [edit] allows it to try and focus on the Unionist vote. Which it does badly, in competition with the Tories, in Scotland.
It greatly reduces the need of Labour UK wide to gain a majority, because the SNP neutralises a chunk of the Tory Party.
This is very much to Labour's advantage.
Thing is that Labour don't want to pay the price the SNP would demand for C&S. That and the mere prospect of one is used by the Tories to frighten voters south of the border. Labour is clearly betting the SNP are too afraid to stop/bring down a Labour minority government and abstain on a King's Speech, letting Starmer walk into No10.
What's wrong with that? It's no different from any SNP minority government at Holyrood. Entirely familiar situation. Needs horsetrading on specific issues of course.
Random fact of the day, the rapid spread of dynasties...... to get away from the descendants of George VI (The liz and margaret lines) we ow have to travel to 30th in line and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
Certainly they are outrageous cakeists. Contrast the Church of England where the archb of C is on £85,070 and, I understand, no expenses, entertainment allowance etc, when I am sure prewar Cantuars lived like princes. It's either jets every day or environmentalism, either the WWF or heavy duty game shooting, and either a claim of living a life of "service" or living up to the greatest inheritance the world has known, which largely belongs to us. Slimming down doesn't just mean sacking pedo boy, it has to involve returning half the palacs to the nation and living less like a rap artist.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Reading the abstract, it seems less a desire for authoritarianism, and more a product of alienation, no? That there is a clear belief that parliament / government has no interest in their wellbeing, and therefore someone who does care about their wellbeing would have to actively combat that institution. I find the "repairing the ties that bind" section questionable too - it seems to think civic cohesion is somehow separate from economic reality. If younger people were less economically precarious, and the future didn't look so bleak, they might feel British democracy works for them.
This is just a conservative think tank making conservative talking points to suggest solutions to the negative products of successive conservative governments. That Johnson sold himself as a strongman, and acted as such, illegally proroguing parliament and trying to ignore parliamentary oversight, does not seem to factor here.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
The monarch has no real power. It's job is to embody the nation. The Americans don't have someone to do that, they have a flag instead. They attach way, way more mythical importance to the flag than we do (hence the pledge of allegiance.) I don't criticise them for this: I truly believe that a nation needs some abstract symbology. Ours happens to be in some well-remunerated posh people.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely. I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off. The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
So accidents of birth are better than elections? Should Charles have had no issue, or died as a young man, having Andrew is just the luck of the draw?
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
The answer to your question is that most of use consider a King or Queen to be a symbol of our liberty and order, and a link to our history, in the same way that the Dutch or Danes, or Japanese do.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Vote SNP, get Truss!
I think all who assume this forget the detailed mechanics of the parliament and how the situation will develop.
No, they don’t.
SNP allows Labour PM; then doesn't vote on certain matters, under the EVEL-type principles, allowing Tory majorities; how long wil it continue? And not once will the SNP have put a foot wrong.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
If Lab and SNP can make a majority and the Tories can't make a governing majority, Lab can just dare the SNP to vote down their budget sans negotiation. Should the SNP vote down a Lab budget, a new GE will be called, and Lab can argue that the SNP have no interest in keeping Tories out of national government, and only using the Tories as a punching bag for independence. Whether or not that makes them Tory allies is another thing, but I don't see them falling into that trap - they will vote for the minimum legislation / budget necessary to keep Labour in government, but make every legislative act a tooth pulling exercise until Labour negotiate.
Fortunately, the Tories scrapping the FTPA would has done Starmer a big favour if he finds himself in a hung parliament. Starmer doesn't need to keep his government going for five years. He just needs to keep going long enough until he's ready to call another election. Given Starmer is a fan of Wilson, that's clearly the thinking he has in mind.
These stories about protestors being arrested are not just very bad, but also very weird. Who even wants this? Who gains? The whole point of a defanged constitutional monarchy is that being for it or against it makes no difference to anything.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
Yes, there are a great many what I'd call constitutional monarchists, general supporters of the system, but the idea a monarch pressing against the expectations of that would find significant support is for the birds.
Christ, there was more support for a powerful monarch like that amongst the parliamentarians of the civil war (just one reason they had to be purged before killing the king actively seeking to defeat them in battle could be done) that there is in parliament today.
Like, is this not weird to people? I'm not blaming the Queen for dying, obviously, but the fact that we allow the ceremony around one family to have this impact on people is not good:
As of now, 6,264 out of 6,578 electoral districts counted. BUT note that, according to official results webpage:
"The preliminary vote count continues on Wednesday, September 14, with a summary count, when the electoral commissions count the votes that did not make it to the polling stations on election day. The collection votes for the Riksdag are distributed among 314 collection districts."
S 30.5% SD 20.6% M 19.1% C 6.7% V 6.7% K 5.4% G 5.1% L 4.6%
According to (notoriously Swede-phobic) New York Times (Manhattan's answer to Svenska Dagbladet):
"With a little more than 95 percent of votes in electoral districts counted after Sunday’s election, officials said they had yet to count early mail-in votes and ballots from citizens abroad, and that the preliminary general election results would not be available until Wednesday at the earliest."
Note that currently the right bloc has estimated 175 seats (+1 compared to 2018) versus left bloc with 174 (-1).
Further note that at last election, 3 seats changed hands between parties from Election Night to final count.
So it's possible that the numbers bloc v block might flip. On other hand, any change could just be a lateral, that is party loses a seat to another party in same bloc.
Question: might overseas AND early postal votes be skewed one way or the other compared with votes already counted? And, if so, which direction?
My own highly un-educated guess, is that Swedish Democrats may NOT do as well with late, esp. overseas vote. BUT would differential (if it exists) be sufficient to do a flip? Or just a lateral?
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
I think you've misunderstood on the last bit - I thought he was saying that much of republicanism (ie opposition to monarchy) in this country is because it[the monarchy] works in practice but not in theory. That is, they are opposing it in principle, rather than because the actual operation of the system is that bad.
As for the point, that's been answered many times - it's symbolic mostly. I get that that does not cut it for many, or that you can indeed have symbolic elected presidents, but I don't think we need to pretend to not understand.
As of now, 6,264 out of 6,578 electoral districts counted. BUT note that, according to official results webpage:
"The preliminary vote count continues on Wednesday, September 14, with a summary count, when the electoral commissions count the votes that did not make it to the polling stations on election day. The collection votes for the Riksdag are distributed among 314 collection districts."
S 30.5% SD 20.6% M 19.1% C 6.7% V 6.7% K 5.4% G 5.1% L 4.6%
According to (notoriously Swede-phobic) New York Times (Manhattan's answer to Svenska Dagbladet):
"With a little more than 95 percent of votes in electoral districts counted after Sunday’s election, officials said they had yet to count early mail-in votes and ballots from citizens abroad, and that the preliminary general election results would not be available until Wednesday at the earliest."
Note that currently the right bloc has estimated 175 seats (+1 compared to 2018) versus left bloc with 174 (-1).
Further note that at last election, 3 seats changed hands between parties from Election Night to final count.
So it's possible that the numbers bloc v block might flip. On other hand, any change could just be a lateral, that is party loses a seat to another party in same bloc.
Question: might overseas AND early postal votes be skewed one way or the other compared with votes already counted? And, if so, which direction?
My own highly un-educated guess, is that Swedish Democrats may NOT do as well with late, esp. overseas vote. BUT would differential (if it exists) be sufficient to do a flip? Or just a lateral?
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Vote SNP, get Truss!
I think all who assume this forget the detailed mechanics of the parliament and how the situation will develop.
No, they don’t.
SNP allows Labour PM; then doesn't vote on certain matters, under the EVEL-type principles, allowing Tory majorities; how long wil it continue? And not once will the SNP have put a foot wrong.
That's assuming a situation where the Tories (plus DUP probably) have more MPs than any other party combined minus the SNP, but can't command the house. Labour would be trying to form a government with barely any more MPs than Brown managed in 2010. Can't see it.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
I would suggest the apparent trend of youth towards republicanism and their equally apparant trend towards authoritarianism as seen in a recent thread means we are better off holding off their desires as long as possible in favour of the utterly hamstrung 'powers' of a constitutional monarchy.
Where is the evidence that the youth support authoritarianism?
Reading the abstract, it seems less a desire for authoritarianism, and more a product of alienation, no? That there is a clear belief that parliament / government has no interest in their wellbeing, and therefore someone who does care about their wellbeing would have to actively combat that institution. I find the "repairing the ties that bind" section questionable too - it seems to think civic cohesion is somehow separate from economic reality. If younger people were less economically precarious, and the future didn't look so bleak, they might feel British democracy works for them.
This is just a conservative think tank making conservative talking points to suggest solutions to the negative products of successive conservative governments. That Johnson sold himself as a strongman, and acted as such, illegally proroguing parliament and trying to ignore parliamentary oversight, does not seem to factor here.
Close to half wanted a military government. Would you say that in general, military governments are better or worse than constitutional monarchies?
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Yes, I think celebrating a 'mere' 44% welling up as an indication of poor prospects for the monarchy is an odd one. There have to be better data points for republican prospects than that almost half of people got teary (which doesn't even include all monarchists).
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
I just spent 25 minutes on the phone to Admiral renewing my car insurance. I didn't need to but the call centre was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and we ended up discussing The Queen.
She said reactions had varied but her parents and grandparents were distraught. I asked her what she thought Canada would do next and she said it's a bit quaint but she thought they had a good thing going over there, and wouldn't want to be like America.
In my experience, that's pretty representative of Canadians.
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
I am doubtful of your assertion that English has more monosyllabic words useful for deflating pomposity than other languages. Any evidence for this assertion? Similarly your assumed relationship between linguistic structure and political system seems implausible. If you can provide evidence for either it would be great.
If you will excuse me for being on topic, I'd like to ask an awkward question: Given the arithmetic in Mike's fourth paragraph, would it be fair to conclude that the SNP is -- in effect -- an ally of the Conservative Party? Let me repeat, in effect.
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Yes, it is a de facto ally of the Conservative Party, albeit SNPers hate this when it’s pointed out.
Vote SNP, get Truss!
I think all who assume this forget the detailed mechanics of the parliament and how the situation will develop.
No, they don’t.
SNP allows Labour PM; then doesn't vote on certain matters, under the EVEL-type principles, allowing Tory majorities; how long wil it continue? And not once will the SNP have put a foot wrong.
That's assuming a situation where the Tories (plus DUP probably) have more MPs than any other party combined minus the SNP, but can't command the house. Labour would be trying to form a government with barely anymore MPs than Brown managed in 2010. Can't see it.
You do need to add the LDs etc - who are likely to do rather better this time round, and will also sometimes vote for and sometimes against Labour. So, really, a wider collection of non-Labour non-Tory MPs and parties.
But it does depend on the maths, and if the maths are wrong, then there's no way the SNP can be painted as an ally of the Tories anyway.
The point of a monarch is to embody values and principles outwith tawdry politics.
I was glad to hear Charles say he will reign until he dies. Those modern abdicating monarchs just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.
I find the royal family incorrigibly naff, but I do get the point of a monarchy.
Without tawdry politics? But they are political - cut outs from laws are inherently political (I noticed today that they are exempt from inheritance tax, for example). The ability to have state funerals is inherently political. And the effect of their existence, that those saying "Not My King" can be arrested or assaulted, is political.
With power comes politics.
And what values does Charles embody that an elected politician couldn't? Hell, Charles could run for elected head of state - and if he was voted in that would be fine.
It's just weird. This inherent deference we're supposed to feel to these people, it makes my skin crawl. What makes them so important? Wealth, blood, breeding - so what?
Random fact of the day, the rapid spread of dynasties...... to get away from the descendants of George VI (The liz and margaret lines) we ow have to travel to 30th in line and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester
Random fact 2 there are 78 valid claimants in the line from George V, after the George VI line the Gloucesters, Kents and descendants of Princess Mary (the Lascelles). The first outsude of this is David Carnegie, the duke of Fife 79th in line and great great grandon of Edward VII
John Bercow has been found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff by the standards watchdog and banned from holding a pass allowing him access to parliament buildings for life.
As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.
A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.
The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.
It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.
That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.
The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.
I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.
Twat
Thank you for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated
You made a fairly reasonable post and you just get abused. This website is so much better than that
By and large it is but here are one or two,abusive vulgar, drunken. bellends and I don’t mean Leon. He’s great.. Just ignoring them does not make anyones participation here any poorer.
interesting
If somebody makes an over long, overwritten, overly pompous, intellectually mediocre post - saying very little they couldn’t have said in one or two paragraphs - as is the case here, then it is most amusing to deflate their wanky verbosity with the monosyllable:
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
As of now, 6,264 out of 6,578 electoral districts counted. BUT note that, according to official results webpage:
"The preliminary vote count continues on Wednesday, September 14, with a summary count, when the electoral commissions count the votes that did not make it to the polling stations on election day. The collection votes for the Riksdag are distributed among 314 collection districts."
S 30.5% SD 20.6% M 19.1% C 6.7% V 6.7% K 5.4% G 5.1% L 4.6%
According to (notoriously Swede-phobic) New York Times (Manhattan's answer to Svenska Dagbladet):
"With a little more than 95 percent of votes in electoral districts counted after Sunday’s election, officials said they had yet to count early mail-in votes and ballots from citizens abroad, and that the preliminary general election results would not be available until Wednesday at the earliest."
Note that currently the right bloc has estimated 175 seats (+1 compared to 2018) versus left bloc with 174 (-1).
Further note that at last election, 3 seats changed hands between parties from Election Night to final count.
So it's possible that the numbers bloc v block might flip. On other hand, any change could just be a lateral, that is party loses a seat to another party in same bloc.
Question: might overseas AND early postal votes be skewed one way or the other compared with votes already counted? And, if so, which direction?
My own highly un-educated guess, is that Swedish Democrats may NOT do as well with late, esp. overseas vote. BUT would differential (if it exists) be sufficient to do a flip? Or just a lateral?
It's extraordinary how little change there was over four years.
It's even funnier when an early election is called and there's virtually no change. Look at the last canadian federal election - sure, Trudeau still comes out a winner, but the cunning wheeze of going early resulted in him going barely up in seats, the next two parties exactly the same, and other marginal changes.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
You remind me of the eager, young Soviet commissar circa 1935, who was the first to be seen ceasing to applaud an oration in praise of Comrade Stalin. After forty-five minutes of solid clapping, interrupted only by thuds of the halt, lame and elderly fainting from the strain.
As soon as HE stopped clapping, everyone stopped. So they could start accusing him with insufficient zeal.
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
You think that's a low amount? I'm astonished it's that high. I haven't well up about it, and I am a monarchist to my core.
Yes, I think celebrating a 'mere' 44% welling up as an indication of poor prospects for the monarchy is an odd one. There have to be better data points for republican prospects than that almost half of people got teary (which doesn't even include all monarchists).
The 44% are obviously furiners - though good sorts.
A Proper Britisher would adjust his monocle, mutter something about dust in the air and ask the butler for a freshly ironed copy of the Times.
Like, is this not weird to people? I'm not blaming the Queen for dying, obviously, but the fact that we allow the ceremony around one family to have this impact on people is not good:
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Comments
This case springs to my mind, it's thought policing, same as today. People are being arrested for wrongthink as adjudicated by the police.
I wonder how many times I would get tasered?
https://www.verywellmind.com/pavlovs-dogs-2794989
This conclusion seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it mentioned here (or anywhere else), at least not recently.
(In US politics, the Democratic Party has been backing the Trump faction in primaries. So, such tacit agreements of supposed ideological foes sometimes occur here, too.)
Twat
That is all. English is particularly good for this. Maybe it’s one reason we’ve never had a dictator
If someone is being a bellend, the consequence should be "oi, mate, stop being a bellend". And if that person doesn't stop being a bellend, they will probably be socially ostracised, or "cancelled". They don't need to be punched in the face and thrown to the floor, and it is certainly unacceptable that after being punched in the face and thrown to the floor they are the one being held by the police and not those who assaulted him.
New YouGov poll finds that 44% of people in the UK say they shed a tear or welled up over the Queen's death.
We will not have a monarchy by the time I die.
2 possibilities, one of which is protests are being visibly cracked down on now to discourage misconduct on funeral day (which is bad enough), the other is that this is the new normal. I'm simply unexcited about the monarchist debate, I like Anee and Zara and the rest are a bunch of wombats, but if jovially shouting at fat pedo boy is going to result in being dragged to the dungeons I want them all gone yesterday.
Says it all.
First they came for Piers...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55162041
And every king before Cromwell.
What the SNP represents is a solid block of guaranteed anti-Tory social democratic votes - which basically saves Labour from making a serious effort to gain the social democratic vote and [edit] allows it to try and focus on the Unionist vote. Which it does badly, in competition with the Tories, in Scotland.
It greatly reduces the need of Labour UK wide to gain a majority, because the SNP neutralises a chunk of the Tory Party.
This is very much to Labour's advantage.
I shall be going on a long hike in the wilderness Monday, far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife.
Which reminds me, you don't need a mobile signal for OS Maps or Outdoors GB. It runs off GPS. Even tracks you in airplane mode.
He’s a completely and utter liability, self-entitled, thick as pigshit, and deserves all criticism, but calling him a “pedo” is nonsense.
https://twitter.com/Fhamiltontimes/status/1569357409382182912
POLICE Scotland have questions to answer over their policing of anti-monarchist protests over the weekend, critics have said after fears were sparked the force was cracking down on freedom of speech.
Concerns have been raised since a woman was arrested and charged on Sunday with allegedly breaching the peace by carrying a sign which read: “F*** imperialism. Abolish the monarchy”. She has been released from custody and is due in court at a later date.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/21327570.police-scotland-faces-questions-anti-monarchist-arrests/
What has happened in the intervening time is a creeping culture within the police and other parts of the public sector where these laws are used to achieve various fashionable political ends, politicians have been happy to go along with it - mainly because they have been captured by the 'equalities' agenda ,which now reaches its most absurd extreme with the trans stuff.
Free speech definetly has to apply universally, not just free speech for things you agree with.
There's a whole world of difference between an individual performing a silent protest by holding up a sign saying 'Republic Now' and someone screaming abuse at a funeral cortege.
Both are "free speech" but I'd expect the latter to be dealt with as a public order offence as, quite rightly, as we have laws for public decency and nuisance, in the same way you have the right to do what you like with your property but can't hold a very loud private party all-night long in your property that disturbs the peace.
Charles n Co are on a pretty knifey knife edge though, we've already had inkpotgate and paternalaffectiongate from 2 senior players, both really dreadful looks, and it 's only day 5. Test matches used to last longer, in the old days.
Only other one I can think of, though I don't use it, is Big Ears [from a Noddy character in an Enid Blyton series]. Obvious reason.
"It gets worse. Perhaps they spout pointless opinions. Maybe they make a fuss about whether pineapple belongs on pizza or their dislike of the word “moist”."
Fighting talk from the Graun.
The issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president is why bother? It's not obvious to me that a president could necessarily do a good job of being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than the previous incumbent or even the current one - in fact it strikes me as less likely.
I have two objections to the monarchy: one is that I appear to be expected to take more of an interest in these people as people than I would like to. That's an emotional reaction. That's irritation at football being cancelled. But really it doesn't really stack up as an argument and it's something I'm prepared to brush off.
The second is that we have no insurance against getting a really bad head of state. For the last 70 years, we've had a good one. Now we've got another one. I can't imagine he'll be as good, but he'll still probably be better at being a neutral and well-respected figurehead than an elected leader. Having somebody foisted on you as a fait accompli can do that - no poisonous election campaign or groundswell of opinion who voted for the other fella. But sooner or later, we're going to get a right bloody idiot - an Andrew or a Harry. And that could be quite bad news for the country.
In reality, it’s probably always been there, just I wasn’t alive or conscious of it.
Edit - 2 threads ago
Similarly your assumed relationship between linguistic structure and political system seems implausible.
If you can provide evidence for either it would be great.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821.amp
If they have no power, why do they need to exist at all, and if the question is "who do we replace them with" why is "nobody" not an acceptable answer?
Apparently, taking the two polls together, young people want the symbolic head of state to be elected, but the executive head of state to be a dictator.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
Reading the abstract, it seems less a desire for authoritarianism, and more a product of alienation, no? That there is a clear belief that parliament / government has no interest in their wellbeing, and therefore someone who does care about their wellbeing would have to actively combat that institution. I find the "repairing the ties that bind" section questionable too - it seems to think civic cohesion is somehow separate from economic reality. If younger people were less economically precarious, and the future didn't look so bleak, they might feel British democracy works for them.
This is just a conservative think tank making conservative talking points to suggest solutions to the negative products of successive conservative governments. That Johnson sold himself as a strongman, and acted as such, illegally proroguing parliament and trying to ignore parliamentary oversight, does not seem to factor here.
I was glad to hear Charles say he will reign until he dies. Those modern abdicating monarchs just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.
I find the royal family incorrigibly naff, but I do get the point of a monarchy.
Overreactions are the sign of an idiotic organisation - no surprise the police are having difficulty.
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
Christ, there was more support for a powerful monarch like that amongst the parliamentarians of the civil war (just one reason they had to be purged before killing the king actively seeking to defeat them in battle could be done) that there is in parliament today.
https://twitter.com/tristandross/status/1569371331359031302?s=46&t=I_P7-r8ZDEG2h3lv9osF1w&fbclid=IwAR3O225-WGMVwBQE7Zc02sIqoP3T1vbMQYzmll5NDSOIuKO93T50uOjM0BQ
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1998/09/bill-clinton-and-the-meaning-of-is.html
As of now, 6,264 out of 6,578 electoral districts counted. BUT note that, according to official results webpage:
"The preliminary vote count continues on Wednesday, September 14, with a summary count, when the electoral commissions count the votes that did not make it to the polling stations on election day. The collection votes for the Riksdag are distributed among 314 collection districts."
S 30.5%
SD 20.6%
M 19.1%
C 6.7%
V 6.7%
K 5.4%
G 5.1%
L 4.6%
According to (notoriously Swede-phobic) New York Times (Manhattan's answer to Svenska Dagbladet):
"With a little more than 95 percent of votes in electoral districts counted after Sunday’s election, officials said they had yet to count early mail-in votes and ballots from citizens abroad, and that the preliminary general election results would not be available until Wednesday at the earliest."
Note that currently the right bloc has estimated 175 seats (+1 compared to 2018) versus left bloc with 174 (-1).
Further note that at last election, 3 seats changed hands between parties from Election Night to final count.
So it's possible that the numbers bloc v block might flip. On other hand, any change could just be a lateral, that is party loses a seat to another party in same bloc.
Question: might overseas AND early postal votes be skewed one way or the other compared with votes already counted? And, if so, which direction?
My own highly un-educated guess, is that Swedish Democrats may NOT do as well with late, esp. overseas vote. BUT would differential (if it exists) be sufficient to do a flip? Or just a lateral?
https://resultat.val.se/val2022/prel/RD/rike
As for the point, that's been answered many times - it's symbolic mostly. I get that that does not cut it for many, or that you can indeed have symbolic elected presidents, but I don't think we need to pretend to not understand.
Can't see it.
Nobody ever asks how horse
She said reactions had varied but her parents and grandparents were distraught. I asked her what she thought Canada would do next and she said it's a bit quaint but she thought they had a good thing going over there, and wouldn't want to be like America.
In my experience, that's pretty representative of Canadians.
But it does depend on the maths, and if the maths are wrong, then there's no way the SNP can be painted as an ally of the Tories anyway.
You saw fit to abuse me on the very day The Queen died.
Given how strongly I feel about The Queen, and due to the fact you didn't apologise, that isn't something I'm ever going to forget.
With power comes politics.
And what values does Charles embody that an elected politician couldn't? Hell, Charles could run for elected head of state - and if he was voted in that would be fine.
It's just weird. This inherent deference we're supposed to feel to these people, it makes my skin crawl. What makes them so important? Wealth, blood, breeding - so what?
As soon as HE stopped clapping, everyone stopped. So they could start accusing him with insufficient zeal.
He was never heard from (or of) again.
If so, I'm in the 44.
If not, I'm in the 56.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
A Proper Britisher would adjust his monocle, mutter something about dust in the air and ask the butler for a freshly ironed copy of the Times.
It's human.
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?