SKS reaches new betting high as PM after general election – politicalbetting.com
SKS reaches new betting high as PM after general election – politicalbetting.com
I like this betting market because it seeks to look at the possibilities that there could be after the next election where it is beginning to look that neither of the main parties are in with a real chance of a majority.
Comments
-
FPT
rcs1000 said:
"India are - of course - playing a dangerous game. If (when) Russia were to become a client state of China, they might soon find their flow of weapons drying up."
So? Ukraine has shown they have been buying shitty second-rate crap from Russia for decades.
American/NATO country hardware is what you need to be buying. Even their cast-offs are way better than what Russia is selling. If indeed Russia can deliver. They will be rebuilding their own armies - delivery dates are going to be years, not months. And even that depends on sourcing western chips.4 -
SKS will be PM in Jan 25 as I've been saying.1
-
First post that’s not from previous thread
Actually second after gazumping.0 -
FPT
But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?moonshine said:Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.
The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...1 -
Yes, this is spot on. Always had a reputation for prissiness.GIN1138 said:FPT
But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?moonshine said:Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.
The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
He’s lost his beloved mother and I have sympathy for him, but his essential character is shining through.1 -
George VI had a famous temper.GIN1138 said:FPT
But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?moonshine said:Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.
The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
Not sure I've ever heard this from William. Harry, yes.0 -
Final US Primaries - Poll closing times in New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Delaware
= 8pm EDT = 1am Wed UK0 -
I hereby predict the crowds in London for the next few days will be unprecedented1
-
I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.2 -
Fizzy has had a cracking start. A work of genius to reject King Charles's offer to piggyback her through the home nations hand pressing sessions Best not to be associated with the old misery. Good girl!turbotubbs said:First post that’s not from previous thread
Actually second after gazumping.0 -
Who do you think the BBC are absolutely terrified of upsetting? The Conservative Party.Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.2 -
On current polls Starmer will win most seats and almost certainly be PM even without a majority4
-
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.0 -
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue1 -
And, perhaps more to the point, they’re continuing to develop a domestic arms industry. As with Turkey.MarqueeMark said:FPT
rcs1000 said:
"India are - of course - playing a dangerous game. If (when) Russia were to become a client state of China, they might soon find their flow of weapons drying up."
So? Ukraine has shown they have been buying shitty second-rate crap from Russia for decades.
American/NATO country hardware is what you need to be buying. Even their cast-offs are way better than what Russia is selling. If indeed Russia can deliver. They will be rebuilding their own armies - delivery dates are going to be years, not months. And even that depends on sourcing western chips.1 -
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g0 -
Other way round works too.tlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.0 -
Nah, it's the Beeb. Nothing to do with the Conservative Party.Carnyx said:
Who do you think the BBC are absolutely terrified of upsetting? The Conservative Party.Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.0 -
Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......2 -
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g1 -
Did you type the first couple of sentences with your face?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would
get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......1 -
0
-
Yes he did!Sunil_Prasannan said:@wooliedyed
Pat Roach also played the big guy with the turban in Temple of Doom.0 -
Yes, that's true. But, I mean, they are called the British Broadcasting Corporation.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue0 -
I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.
Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.5 -
I'd take that to be honest.Carnyx said:
Other way round works too.tlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.0 -
I have some difficulties and have to type with an S Pen. It means i often make errorsThePoliticalParty said:
Did you type the first couple of sentences with your face?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would
get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......1 -
I find it quite reassuring how many of these BBC lefties become Conservative Party candidates and at all levels of politics.Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.3 -
Why don't you call it as you see it instead of prevaricating?Beibheirli_C said:I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.
Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.2 -
FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.
It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.7 -
mysterious russian soul as it is...
https://twitter.com/motytchak/status/15697022176612597770 -
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......0 -
No it isn't, in the past under George IVth for example, Charles 1st and James IInd obviously, Edward VIIIth, Victoria when she became a recluse and even after Diana's death the monarchy was much less unpopular than it is now. It is still there a cornerstone of our nation.Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
BBC1 is still the most watched TV channel, even with freeview0 -
Do you think I should? I was worried about being too direct.squareroot2 said:
Why don't you call it as you see it instead of prevaricating?Beibheirli_C said:I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.
Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.0 -
It's a bit like @Leons "Lefty Friends", you have to bear in mind that everything politically is relative. From the far right, everything looks Lefty.Mexicanpete said:
I find it quite reassuring how many of these BBC lefties become Conservative Party candidates and at all levels of politics.Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.4 -
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins0 -
Bill Baileys latest tour promo?Nigelb said:mysterious russian soul as it is...
https://twitter.com/motytchak/status/15697022176612597771 -
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been4 -
Home made vodka is a terrible thing.Nigelb said:mysterious russian soul as it is...
https://twitter.com/motytchak/status/1569702217661259777
1 -
To get to that point Truss needs to get rather closer than the 7% Labour lead on the latest poll, currently she is heading for about the same number of MPs Brown got in 2010wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins0 -
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue0 -
Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
There is always everything to play for.0 -
"A famous temper" FFS. Something you can only exercise on people down the pecking order from you whose choice is take it or be sacked. It's like people used to say of that fuckwitted old racist HMQ was married to that he "didn't suffer fools gladly," when his chances of meeting anyone thicker than him in a non instituional setting were zero.Casino_Royale said:
George VI had a famous temper.GIN1138 said:FPT
But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?moonshine said:Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.
The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
Not sure I've ever heard this from William. Harry, yes.
give it to me hard and dry, your maj. I love it.2 -
Yes, but my point is look at the variation in the betting markets - this one versus 50/50 largest party. I am not making a prediction.HYUFD said:
To get to that point Truss needs to get rather closer than the 7% Labour lead on the latest poll, currently she is heading for about the same number of MPs Brown got in 2010wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins1 -
The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid thatNickPalmer said:
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time
It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
0 -
The contrast with the weeks during the worst of lockdown when London (as everywhere) was deserted will be incredible.Leon said:I hereby predict the crowds in London for the next few days will be unprecedented
Like nature, the green shoots of human society cannot remain dormant in the earth for long.
I seem to recall you were particularly upset by how empty and dead the capital had become during the worst of it.
0 -
Of courseCasino_Royale said:
Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
There is always everything to play for.
But the continuation of the UK monarchy, for the next - say - 20 years - is as good as a sure bet as you get in world politics. It is extremely hard to envisage a scenario where it falls. Nuclear war? But then we are all dead1 -
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.0 -
My attitude to the monarchy is "not worth the energy getting rid of it". But there is no doubt that Elizabeth II was history, and I'll be talking about last night on PB in about 50 years timeEabhal said:FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.
It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.
On the long wait in the dark - I wonder if it really does stir something in our minds? Just thinking of things like Hogmanay, Christmas, Guy Fawkes. Oidhche Challain in the Western Isles, Up Helly Aa on Shetland, and the Burning of the Clavie in Moray.1 -
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.1 -
I doubt the BBC will ever die, the brandname alone is still probably the most respected in global TV and radio and it still gets the license feeLeon said:
The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid thatNickPalmer said:
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time
It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better0 -
Julia Davis
@JuliaDavisNews
·
18m
Russia has secretly funneled at least $300 million to foreign political parties and candidates in more than two dozen countries since 2014 in an attempt to shape political events beyond its borders, according to a new U.S. intelligence review.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569786833453850624
===
$300m less for spending on Vlad's utterly shite military. Oh dear, how sad, never mind...
2 -
I was. And it was horriblerottenborough said:
The contrast with the weeks during the worst of lockdown when London (as everywhere) was deserted will be incredible.Leon said:I hereby predict the crowds in London for the next few days will be unprecedented
Like nature, the green shoots of human society cannot remain dormant in the earth for long.
I seem to recall you were particularly upset by how empty and dead the capital had become during the worst of it.
I was thinking almost this exact same thought this evening as I flaneured about Seville
I remember people predicting “the death of cities”
Lol, how wrong. People will always come together in bigger and bigger numbers for food, sex, chat, worship, society, politics, art, sports. This is, literally, civilisation. Humanity is not returning to village life
Seville buzzes tonight1 -
I think the BBC is simply very Establishment, such that it can be defined. Status quo, other than a few trendy positions to cleave to.Carnyx said:
Who do you think the BBC are absolutely terrified of upsetting? The Conservative Party.Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.0 -
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.1 -
An intellectual.HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.
2 -
I doubt the issue is going to get much salience in this country, even with the fuckpig, because post-Brexit I think many people are fed up with so much politics and won't be in a rush to rock the boat.IshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
Australia and other "realms" though are much less likely to keep the monarchy under Charles than they were under Elizabeth.0 -
He is well read and speaks well and has more class in his little finger than you have in your whole body!IshmaelZ said:
An intellectual.HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.0 -
King Emeritus?GIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.1 -
Franz of Bavaria and his brother Max row up Loch Shiel and raise the jacobite standard and this time there is no Dudley Bradstreet feeding duff info when they reach Derby.......Leon said:
Of courseCasino_Royale said:
Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
There is always everything to play for.
But the continuation of the UK monarchy, for the next - say - 20 years - is as good as a sure bet as you get in world politics. It is extremely hard to envisage a scenario where it falls. Nuclear war? But then we are all dead
A new epoch begins0 -
Are you suggesting his reign will be a bit of a mare?IshmaelZ said:
An intellectual.HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.0 -
Duke of Windsor...BartholomewRoberts said:
King Emeritus?GIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.1 -
Well... How is the bet settled?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Because I don't believe that the Conservative Party is likely to get its Kings Speech through Parliament, unless it was overwhelmingly the latest party: Labor, libdems, snp, PC, Green and most NI MPs will vote against.
If Ms Truss does not believe she has the confidence of the House, then she cannot tell the King that she does. And no one wants a situation where the Kings Speech is voted down.
In summary: I disagree.2 -
I refer honourable members to threads written on this site in c. 2013 and would like them to remind me how Ed Milliband got on as PM.0
-
He's not going to retire. Do you think he has learnt nothing from his mother?BartholomewRoberts said:
King Emeritus?GIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
Only Eddy 7 "retired" and none of them want to be associated with that.
0 -
That $300 million was far more effective!rottenborough said:
Julia Davis
@JuliaDavisNews
·
18m
Russia has secretly funneled at least $300 million to foreign political parties and candidates in more than two dozen countries since 2014 in an attempt to shape political events beyond its borders, according to a new U.S. intelligence review.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569786833453850624
===
$300m less for spending on Vlad's utterly shite military. Oh dear, how sad, never mind...
If the Russian archives are opened after Putins downfall they will be of a great deal of interest. Several well known figures will be very embarrassed.0 -
Absolutely dry, your Majesty, and hard as you like. Amen.HYUFD said:
He is well read and speaks well and has more class in his little finger than you have in your whole body!IshmaelZ said:
An intellectual.HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.
1 -
Juan Carlos is now King EmeritusGIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.1 -
I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
And nor will Truss.1 -
VIII not VIIrottenborough said:
He's not going to retire. Do you think he has learnt nothing from his mother?BartholomewRoberts said:
King Emeritus?GIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
Only Eddy 7 "retired" and none of them want to be associated with that.
3 -
The BBC has regional news and programming though.Leon said:
The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid thatNickPalmer said:
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time
It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
Something not always obvious from London.
A lot of the talent comes up through that route.0 -
Pack him off to be Governor General of the Bahamasydoethur said:
Duke of Windsor...BartholomewRoberts said:
King Emeritus?GIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.0 -
Australia will certainly have a referendum again in 5 years or so if Labor is re elected but I wouldn't say the result is certain even if it would likely be closer than 1999.BartholomewRoberts said:
I doubt the issue is going to get much salience in this country, even with the fuckpig, because post-Brexit I think many people are fed up with so much politics and won't be in a rush to rock the boat.IshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
Australia and other "realms" though are much less likely to keep the monarchy under Charles than they were under Elizabeth.
Canada won't change as both PM Trudeau and the Conservative Opposition back the monarchy. New Zealand likely won't either. However let us not forget most Commonwealth nations have already become republics or got their own monarchs in Elizabeth's reign
http://www.republic.org.nz/latestblog/2021/11/17/opinion-poll-44-republic-50-monarchy-after-the-queen0 -
He'd have to be reallllly bad to noticably impact support levels inside a year.IshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
I expect probably a bit of a dip as some Commonwealth Realms become republics and that causes a few people to go, ''eh, I suppose it is time for it", but he wasn't as unpopular as some thought before he got a boost from being king, and the polling hasn't massively changed I believe.
You clearly feel very very strongly about him personally, and I just don't think most will one way or another, and so the prevailing position is sustained.
The monarchy get survive on general apathy and some fervent support. It's mass opposition it could not handle, and we're a long long way from that.0 -
You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.ydoethur said:
I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
And nor will Truss.2 -
That's absolutely right. There are chaps at my golf club who view the SNP as commies. I've heard the muttering.Foxy said:
It's a bit like @Leons "Lefty Friends", you have to bear in mind that everything politically is relative. From the far right, everything looks Lefty.Mexicanpete said:
I find it quite reassuring how many of these BBC lefties become Conservative Party candidates and at all levels of politics.Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.0 -
"The King" is still quite jarring when it is used.
Not a political comment at all, but merely a personal reaction.3 -
I mean SKS did try and get an anti-Semitic Trotskyite elected as well as trying to cancel the biggest political mandate in British history.Beibheirli_C said:I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.
Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.
Remember too that the PLP is far more left-wing than SKS is trying to present himself as so if he attempts to govern in the center there will be havoc in the Labour Party though my guess is that given he stuck it out on Jezza's shadow cabinet right to end he will turn out to be a pretty radical left-winger himself once elected.
Don't get me wrong he will be PM in 2025 but I don't think he will be saviour of the nation somehow...1 -
I do recall the fun I used to have at the start of my career when a Director could hairdryer me for no reason other than because he could.IshmaelZ said:
"A famous temper" FFS. Something you can only exercise on people down the pecking order from you whose choice is take it or be sacked. It's like people used to say of that fuckwitted old racist HMQ was married to that he "didn't suffer fools gladly," when his chances of meeting anyone thicker than him in a non instituional setting were zero.Casino_Royale said:
George VI had a famous temper.GIN1138 said:FPT
But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?moonshine said:Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.
The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
Not sure I've ever heard this from William. Harry, yes.
give it to me hard and dry, your maj. I love it.
Ah, those were the days. I remember one motivational team talk where the the MD told us " If it were (sic) up to me I wouldn't even pay you bastards in washers". It looks like Charles went to the same management finishing school.0 -
Self identify as a woman, to become the Queen.BartholomewRoberts said:
You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.ydoethur said:
I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
And nor will Truss.
Self identifying as a queen wouldn't stop him from being the King...0 -
Ah yes from memory that's when you get a screen of text saying that HD isn't available in your region and showing a ticking down clock until something comes back on again.dixiedean said:
The BBC has regional news and programming though.Leon said:
The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid thatNickPalmer said:
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time
It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
Something not always obvious from London.
A lot of the talent comes up through that route.
Sometimes used to see that after the football. Good talent, really sound use of the licence fee that ticking clock.0 -
Ed Miliband was only facing a Tory government in office for 5 years not 14 years and Cameron also had the UKIP vote to squeeze. Cameron also led as best PM in most polls as Starmer does nowbiggles said:I refer honourable members to threads written on this site in c. 2013 and would like them to remind me how Ed Milliband got on as PM.
2 -
We've been at War since 2014.rottenborough said:
Julia Davis
@JuliaDavisNews
·
18m
Russia has secretly funneled at least $300 million to foreign political parties and candidates in more than two dozen countries since 2014 in an attempt to shape political events beyond its borders, according to a new U.S. intelligence review.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569786833453850624
===
$300m less for spending on Vlad's utterly shite military. Oh dear, how sad, never mind...
A heck of a lot of folk have been played. For money, for flattery, or out of stupidity.
Again. This is not a political comment. Both wings and the centre have folk who've been corrupted.0 -
Is there any public broadcaster in the world that is better than the BBC?NickPalmer said:
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue3 -
Why do we have a road called Constitution Hill? We don't have a Constitution and it's barely a hilll.1
-
Hence the voters will likely put him in as PM but not give him a majority, as with Cameron in 2010 they trust him with No 10 but don't trust his party yet with a majorityGIN1138 said:
I mean SKS did try and get an anti-Semitic Trotskyite elected as well as trying to cancel the biggest political mandate in British history.Beibheirli_C said:I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.
Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.
Remember too that the PLP is far more left-wing than SKS is trying to present himself as so if he attempts to govern in the center there will be havoc in the Labour Party though my guess is that given he stuck it out on Jezza's shadow cabinet right to end he will turn out to be a pretty radical left-winger himself once elected.
Don't get me wrong he will be PM in 2025 but I don't think he will be saviour of the nation somehow...2 -
Giving the job of Queen to a man is peak wokery.BartholomewRoberts said:
You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.ydoethur said:
I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
And nor will Truss.3 -
Its KS not QS i forgot!rcs1000 said:
Well... How is the bet settled?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Because I don't believe that the Conservative Party is likely to get its Kings Speech through Parliament, unless it was overwhelmingly the latest party: Labor, libdems, snp, PC, Green and most NI MPs will vote against.
If Ms Truss does not believe she has the confidence of the House, then she cannot tell the King that she does. And no one wants a situation where the Kings Speech is voted down.
In summary: I disagree.
Feb 74 is the precedent, neither party had a formal deal so the very marginally larger party formed a short term minority.
Id expect a Truss largest party would be put in to bat by the rest to be brought down at leisure0 -
More Scoddish than a sheep's heid simmering in Scotch broth on a Uist Rayburn.Eabhal said:
My attitude to the monarchy is "not worth the energy getting rid of it". But there is no doubt that Elizabeth II was history, and I'll be talking about last night on PB in about 50 years timeEabhal said:FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.
It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.
On the long wait in the dark - I wonder if it really does stir something in our minds? Just thinking of things like Hogmanay, Christmas, Guy Fawkes. Oidhche Challain in the Western Isles, Up Helly Aa on Shetland, and the Burning of the Clavie in Moray.
Did you not fancy taking your pipes to the queue last night to add to the atmosphere?0 -
It's a bit like writing the old year when writing dates in January, by February it is normal.dixiedean said:"The King" is still quite jarring when it is used.
Not a political comment at all, but merely a personal reaction.
It will sound a bit discordant until the new year, then just be part of the furniture.2 -
Benedict is also Pope EmeritusHYUFD said:
Juan Carlos is now King EmeritusGIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.0 -
@Phil asked earlier today
"How is the Cass review relevant to a court case on the validity of the charitable status of the LGB alliance?"
On the assumption that this was a genuine question, I will attempt to answer.
The court case has to determine two matters:-
1. Does the charity Mermaids have the legal standing to bring a claim at all? This is the most important question because if it does not - and the bar is very high indeed - none of the rest of its claims matter.
2. Can it establish that LGB Alliance are in breach of their charitable objects and charity law?
Both issues are being reviewed at the same time.
As part of this LGB Alliance are stating that they are concerned about young lesbians and whether they are being wrongly categorised as trans and made subject to treatment. Mermaids are disputing this. The Cass Interim Report is relevant to this issue because it deals with the question of how children with gender issues are being treated, whether some of those concerns may in fact relate to their sexuality rather than any gender issues and the effect of Mermaids' advocacy on how clinics like the Tavistock have operated. And by implication on young lesbians.
Hence the questioning about this topic. If the judge thought this irrelevant, he would have stopped the questioning. What is interesting is that in their answers Mermaids say that they have not really reviewed the Cass Report because they are not experts on health. This is a bit odd because it appears to conflict with other public statements they have made about the health treatment to be given to children. It is, however, early stages in the case.
The case is interesting for a large number of reasons, not all of them related to the trans issue.
Hope that helps.2 -
A triumph of the patriarchy...dixiedean said:
Giving the job of Queen to a man is peak wokery.BartholomewRoberts said:
You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.ydoethur said:
I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.wooliedyed said:
If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QSNickPalmer said:
Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?wooliedyed said:Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.
Theres scope here to make some money.......
Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
And nor will Truss.0 -
Surely:GIN1138 said:
If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?HYUFD said:
Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and KateIshmaelZ said:
It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.Leon said:
You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?Carnyx said:
Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.HYUFD said:
Neither aretlg86 said:
It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?Casino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
Revisit this issue in a year's time.
The King Father0 -
David Steel on BBC news.
God I feel old.
0 -
Unlikely, but the Republic of Exceptionalia state radio company might be a contender.kinabalu said:
Is there any public broadcaster in the world that is better than the BBC?NickPalmer said:
It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.Leon said:
The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small merciesCasino_Royale said:I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.
I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue1 -
Unlike certain Liberal MPs on his watch.rottenborough said:David Steel on BBC news.
God I feel old.6 -
There was a terrible piper on the other side of the Meadows. I didn't think there was a need for another one.Theuniondivvie said:
More Scoddish than a sheep's heid simmering in Scotch broth on a Uist Rayburn.Eabhal said:
My attitude to the monarchy is "not worth the energy getting rid of it". But there is no doubt that Elizabeth II was history, and I'll be talking about last night on PB in about 50 years timeEabhal said:FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.
It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.
On the long wait in the dark - I wonder if it really does stir something in our minds? Just thinking of things like Hogmanay, Christmas, Guy Fawkes. Oidhche Challain in the Western Isles, Up Helly Aa on Shetland, and the Burning of the Clavie in Moray.
Did you not fancy taking your pipes to the queue last night to add to the atmosphere?
I'm not sure mine would be playable, anyway. I think the wood goes after a while.0 -
At least you're not feeling young like the King's brother.rottenborough said:David Steel on BBC news.
God I feel old.2
