The SNP’s lead in Scotland down to just 7% – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
LOL that football has suspended their “Blue Card” idea.
They still like the sin bin idea, which is good, but they managed to screw up the announcement and process1 -
Section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 states that the Regent is the next in line, subject to being of age etc. Parliament does not decide, except if there is a new Act of course.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/body
1 -
Hugh Laurie would make a prefect Prince Regent.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william3 -
So its got 10 weeks on the sidelines to think about it and come back better?Sandpit said:LOL that football has suspended their “Blue Card” idea.
They still like the sin bin idea, which is good, but they managed to screw up the announcement and process1 -
Here's the funny bit;HYUFD said:
Brexit, the need for more affordable housing and the fact after 10 years of Tory rule are all factors.linto said:This thread from the FT showing why young people aren't conservative these days should be massively worrying for the cons and their current trajectory, I doubt it will make much impact on them though.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1755915215995113526?t=8TUF20XNz3EIa6w_yUSjXg&s=19
However as the chart shows, other western conservative parties do not have as big an age gap in their support, so things can change, even if in all nations sampled the old vote more conservative than the young
What we actually see is that young people who look like they *should be Tories* are not Tories.
Here’s the US for comparison.
Young or old, conservative Americans vote Republican. But many young Brits with Conservative-aligned views and circumstances don’t vote Tory.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1755915255136276781
The reason I say funny is that the Conservative successes of 2015-9 were driven by Red Wall Theory- the idea that there were people in northern towns who really ought to be voting Conservative, but weren't. But by leaning towards them, especially with social conservatism, Nimbyomics and B*****, the Conservative party has repelled younger people who, in previous decades, would by now be skipping along the path to being loyal Tories.1 -
Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…0 -
Is anyone doing a book on whether there will be TV debates in the US election? I'd like to bet against....0
-
When conservatives look after the material interests of a voter block, that voter block votes for the conservatives. The Most people under 50 are not in that category. So most people under 50 are not voting conservative. Pretty simple.LostPassword said:
Highly recommend that thread. Only partly because it makes a point I made yesterday...linto said:This thread from the FT showing why young people aren't conservative these days should be massively worrying for the cons and their current trajectory, I doubt it will make much impact on them though.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1755915215995113526?t=8TUF20XNz3EIa6w_yUSjXg&s=19
"The expectation that they will one day be among the haves, rather than have-nots, has long propelled many young people to vote Conservative."0 -
So who else do the Dems have and why haven't we heard of them up to now?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…0 -
Are Biden and the King both double vaxxed?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…0 -
Give him time and he will try and add both of them to the RodinaLeon said:I’m watching Tucker Putin. It is exceptionally dull at the beginning when Putin wanks on about Russian history
On the other hand Putin knows his obsessive shit and he doesn’t mistake Mexico for Egypt0 -
Blimey.
Apparently someone took mad Nad seriously.
Kemi Badenoch says death threats have ‘intensified’ since publication of Nadine Dorries book
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/09/labour-u-turn-keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-rishi-sunak-tory-conservatives-latest-politics-news-updates
Both bizarre, and genuinely worrying.
1 -
Not sure how more Sarwar fixes anything, his main function is to find some way of smoothing over reverse ferrets on positions of principle(sic) that no longer fit in with the Starmer plan. Lab/SLab's mantra is vote for us for change; that change seems to be that the Scottish sub branch office is more of a sub branch office than ever.Carnyx said:
Fair enough. Labour lefty? Not according to the Electoral Compass analyses - Labour definitely well on the way to joining the LDs. But that's a quibble. And tomorrow is tomorrow.Eabhal said:
I think Labour are a lefty party, though Starmer is something of an unknown himself. As equally likely to be unexpectedly left-wing as the opposite - he has, for example, been exposed to the more extreme symptoms of poverty throughout his career.Carnyx said:
On the other hand, there's more to worry about for Slab in terms of London HQ and their overlord SKS. Labour in Scotland have been pretending to be a leftie party - the Rutherglen by election was a prize example of adopting SNP policies for expedience. The more attention SKS gets and the more he trims his sails to the much larger market in England the more the discrepancy will become clear. Interesting.noneoftheabove said:
Agree, this is a good poll for the SNP not Labour. Their leadership chaos not been in the news so much recently possibly having an impact along with them benefitting from Labours position on the Israel-Palestinian war. Would expect it to be closer by the GE.Selebian said:SNP's lead? Given all the posts we see from Scotch experts on here on SNP troubles, I assumed they were at (England) Tory levels of support!
ETA: And Starner is some senior SNP bod who reacted to the falling poll lead news with 'God!' ?
ETA2: Oh, and first like, um, the SNP?
But I entirely agree on the England/Scotland tradeoff. It depends where the marginal gains are - in England, most likely, due to the much larger number of seats. It would be smart to give Sarwar a much higher profile on the campaign literature to help dispel the effect though.
While personally deeply disappointed, I think the line of the green stuff is fine from an electoral POV - gives him an opportunity to jump in on Tory mismanagement of the public finances over and over again and closes off an obvious attack.
Look also at SKS doing U-turns on such things as deigning to allow the Scots an indyref for which they voted to have, no doubt to try and avoid the repeat of 'In Salmond's pocket' posters, photoshopped for SKS and Mr Yousaf. So they can't differentiate too much anyway, and oif course the "national" media in London will give SKS lots of attention which will overwhelm the 3 minutes Mr Sarwar gets if he is lucky ... it's not as if the latter is leader of a political party anyway, as the Electoral Commission knows very well.1 -
…
Rule No1 of betting is that you should know what price you think the outcome should be, and see what’s on offer, before you declare what you’d like to docarnforth said:Is anyone doing a book on whether there will be TV debates in the US election? I'd like to bet against....
For instance, if the prices were 1/10 there won’t be TV debates in the US election, and 10/1 there will be, what would you do?1 -
I think Biden made clear with his speech he still intends to stand - unless the plan is and always has been to leave this to get bashed out at the convention. You don't immediately talk about how this exonerates you and you're not a criminal like Trump if you're intending on gracefully moving out of the picture.Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Trump and King William - that would be a funny state visit... "I always admired your mother, you know, a great pair, just a great pair. And those legs. You know, she never mentioned publicly, but we dated - maybe I'm your real father. Just saying, it could be true, could be true."2 -
If the election were next month, he'd be a dead cert to run.148grss said:
I think Biden made clear with his speech he still intends to stand - unless the plan is and always has been to leave this to get bashed out at the convention. You don't immediately talk about how this exonerates you and you're not a criminal like Trump if you're intending on gracefully moving out of the picture.Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Trump and King William - that would be a funny state visit... "I always admired your mother, you know, a great pair, just a great pair. And those legs. You know, she never mentioned publicly, but we dated - maybe I'm your real father. Just saying, it could be true, could be true."
But it's not.
As for Trump, that was denied - though he 'could have'.
https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-sex-princess-diana-hiv-test-howard-stern-interview/1 -
Yes sadly Putin comes across as more impressive than our current crop of western politicians. Not a high bar to be sure.Leon said:I’m watching Tucker Putin. It is exceptionally dull at the beginning when Putin wanks on about Russian history
On the other hand Putin knows his obsessive shit and he doesn’t mistake Mexico for Egypt0 -
Uncanny reproduction of the Trump schtik.148grss said:
I think Biden made clear with his speech he still intends to stand - unless the plan is and always has been to leave this to get bashed out at the convention. You don't immediately talk about how this exonerates you and you're not a criminal like Trump if you're intending on gracefully moving out of the picture.Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Trump and King William - that would be a funny state visit... "I always admired your mother, you know, a great pair, just a great pair. And those legs. You know, she never mentioned publicly, but we dated - maybe I'm your real father. Just saying, it could be true, could be true."0 -
What possible relationship does KCIII’s health have with the cognitive decline of POTUS?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Both are reasonable subjects for speculation, I just don’t see the automatic link0 -
I mean the person who has done the most manoeuvring is Gavin Newsom. He's been doing spots on Fox, had a televised debate with DeSantis, has been visiting some states (although not the ones that are clearly early primary states, but still). I think he has it on his mind that weird stuff may happen at the convention or the VP slot is going to open up. I mean, he may have a deal with Kamala and the WH to switch jobs - if his team backed Kamala for Cali governor and he slid onto the ticket, that could help ease any painful ego on Kamala's part.Stuartinromford said:
So who else do the Dems have and why haven't we heard of them up to now?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…1 -
To be fair Neil has lost it recently.Sandpit said:Andrew Neil not a fan of the Putin interview.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13065007/Tucker-Carlson-Vladimir-Putin-stunt-Hitler-concentration-camps-Russian-President-mad-bad-dangerous-fool-ANDREW-NEIL.html0 -
Doesn’t this graph imply it was some other party’s fault?
The UK’s Conservative party is on the brink of a generational wipeout. The single most important factor driving this is the dramatic breakdown of upward social mobility on.ft.com/3SSPGeP
https://x.com/ft/status/1755925035284320433?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q1 -
I’ve no idea.Stuartinromford said:
So who else do the Dems have and why haven't we heard of them up to now?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
The DNC have completely fucked this up, it’s true.
The best time to have dealt with this was some years ago. The next best time is today.
2 -
Well Joey Barton on twitter has just announced he sat through the whole thing so theres that.AlsoLei said:
There's no way that anything like that many will have sat through the whole thing. It wouldn't even have made good background watching whilst doing something else.Harper said:
I cant imagine more than a couple of million sat through the whole 2 hours. Then maybe another 5 to 10 million watched lengthy segments but not the whole thing.AlsoLei said:
Yeah, I spent only a few minutes skipping through it, so maybe I missed some of the better bits - but from what I saw it was deathly dull with Putin doing his hard-faced bulldozer routine, and Carlson mostly looking lost.FF43 said:Can't claim to have watched every minute of Putin's two hour session with Carlson but a couple of mini takes. Putin starts the session with "If I may I'll spend 30 seconds covering the history. Half an hour later he had got to the 19th Century having started in the 8th Century. Tucker finally gets in a weak "That's very interesting". Which in a way it is because Putin seems genuinely motivated by historical grievance.
The look on Tucker's face when Putin says "You are" in response to who cut Nordstream. ("You will leave for the Siberian work camp following this interview. Ha! Only joking")
A coup for Carlson to get Putin but I have a feeling it didn't turn out exactly as he hoped. Putin isn't one of them. He's a highly focused spy chief and dictator while MAGA is self indulgence.
88 million Twitter impressions at the time of writing - so fewer than his interviews with Andrew Tate or Viktor Orban, and a fifth of the one he did with Javier Milei. When you convert it to actual viewership, it'll be around what Laura Kuenssberg gets when she interviews Sunak or Starmer.
So much for the most-watched interview in history!
As an aside, Twitter desperately needs to improve its video player - a youtube-like graph showing the most-watched bits would do wonders for something like this. Hardly anyone's going to sit through the whole 2 hours of droning, but plenty might be willing to watch the good bits if they were easy to find.
As for watching lengthy segments... really? Which lengthy segments are worth watching? Were there any? And even if there were, you can't even give me a link to them since Twitter's basic video player is so poor.
Sure, plenty of people will see clips once others have done the work of finding the best bits and uploading them to youtube or wherever. But, right now, absolutely no-one is excitedly posting "hey, seek to around 84m37s, and watch the 15 minute segment that follows - it's really interesting!"0 -
Russian thinking is much more sophisticated than the wests generally and much more long term.Alphabet_Soup said:
Russia's long-term strategy is to break up Western unity any which way. Brexit was one (thanks, Johnson); mass migration is another (thanks, Assad); US isolation is another (thanks, Trump). Every useful idiot has a role to play.IanB2 said:
The fact that he was so compromised and potentially tainted by his top level russian contacts (remember the visit to Italy when he shook loose his security?) is of course why Johnson had to pull his finger out when the Ukraine issue broke.mwadams said:
My idle speculation about why Putin is *so furious* with Johnson is that Putin assumed that he was in his pocket (a la Trump), and is incensed to learn that being a suck-up when all things are equal does not translate into being a shill when the bullets start flying. One of the few things which stands to Johnson's credit.GIN1138 said:
Even PB couldn't blame Boris for this one, right? Well maybe @Scott_xP could... 😂isam said:Here’s a tricky one
Vladimir Putin has claimed Boris Johnson is to blame for the continuation of the war in Ukraine.
The Russian President said he was ready to end the war 18 months ago, but that the former Prime Minister put pressure on Ukraine's leaders to back out of the peace deal. Johnson has dismissed the claims as ‘propaganda’.
https://x.com/gmb/status/1755841716576206872?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q0 -
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.0 -
There's a fair number of strong potential candidates other than Harris, and no obvious route for any if them.Gardenwalker said:
I’ve no idea.Stuartinromford said:
So who else do the Dems have and why haven't we heard of them up to now?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
The DNC have completely fucked this up, it’s true.
The best time to have dealt with this was some years ago. The next best time is today.0 -
The Tories - once the party of aspiration - have made it even worse, as eloquently outlined by a poster upthread.isam said:Doesn’t this graph imply it was some other party’s fault?
The UK’s Conservative party is on the brink of a generational wipeout. The single most important factor driving this is the dramatic breakdown of upward social mobility on.ft.com/3SSPGeP
https://x.com/ft/status/1755925035284320433?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
You can’t run a nation, build an economy, and ultimately - win an election - by pandering to 65+.
0 -
He has made quite clear he will stand again and is already ahead in the delegate count, Biden could be on a life support machine and in a coma and still get 45-50% of the vote against Trump anyway.Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
He just needs to hold most of the states he won in 2020 (many of which remember Hillary lost to Trump) and hope Trump's trials get a criminal conviction0 -
Was that part of some community service order ?Harper said:
Well Joey Barton on twitter has just announced he sat through the whole thing so theres that.AlsoLei said:
There's no way that anything like that many will have sat through the whole thing. It wouldn't even have made good background watching whilst doing something else.Harper said:
I cant imagine more than a couple of million sat through the whole 2 hours. Then maybe another 5 to 10 million watched lengthy segments but not the whole thing.AlsoLei said:
Yeah, I spent only a few minutes skipping through it, so maybe I missed some of the better bits - but from what I saw it was deathly dull with Putin doing his hard-faced bulldozer routine, and Carlson mostly looking lost.FF43 said:Can't claim to have watched every minute of Putin's two hour session with Carlson but a couple of mini takes. Putin starts the session with "If I may I'll spend 30 seconds covering the history. Half an hour later he had got to the 19th Century having started in the 8th Century. Tucker finally gets in a weak "That's very interesting". Which in a way it is because Putin seems genuinely motivated by historical grievance.
The look on Tucker's face when Putin says "You are" in response to who cut Nordstream. ("You will leave for the Siberian work camp following this interview. Ha! Only joking")
A coup for Carlson to get Putin but I have a feeling it didn't turn out exactly as he hoped. Putin isn't one of them. He's a highly focused spy chief and dictator while MAGA is self indulgence.
88 million Twitter impressions at the time of writing - so fewer than his interviews with Andrew Tate or Viktor Orban, and a fifth of the one he did with Javier Milei. When you convert it to actual viewership, it'll be around what Laura Kuenssberg gets when she interviews Sunak or Starmer.
So much for the most-watched interview in history!
As an aside, Twitter desperately needs to improve its video player - a youtube-like graph showing the most-watched bits would do wonders for something like this. Hardly anyone's going to sit through the whole 2 hours of droning, but plenty might be willing to watch the good bits if they were easy to find.
As for watching lengthy segments... really? Which lengthy segments are worth watching? Were there any? And even if there were, you can't even give me a link to them since Twitter's basic video player is so poor.
Sure, plenty of people will see clips once others have done the work of finding the best bits and uploading them to youtube or wherever. But, right now, absolutely no-one is excitedly posting "hey, seek to around 84m37s, and watch the 15 minute segment that follows - it's really interesting!"3 -
The NHS isn't for sale. What will happen will be services will be commissioned by the NHS - this is not 'selling' the NHS, despite what lefties like to chant.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
Realistically people in the UK need to look at how healthcare is delivered in other countries. The NHS is great in many ways, but its not the only way to provide universal healthcare. The idea of free at the point of use can be maintained in other ways (mandated health insurance that is genuinely linked to health provision, for instance).2 -
Does that graph show they’ve made it worse? Looks like it’s more or less the same to me while they’ve been in charge, following 15 years of declineGardenwalker said:
The Tories - once the party of aspiration - have made it even worse, as eloquently outlined by a poster upthread.isam said:Doesn’t this graph imply it was some other party’s fault?
The UK’s Conservative party is on the brink of a generational wipeout. The single most important factor driving this is the dramatic breakdown of upward social mobility on.ft.com/3SSPGeP
https://x.com/ft/status/1755925035284320433?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
You can’t run a nation, build an economy, and ultimately - win an election - by pandering to 65+.1 -
Just the parallel.Leon said:
What possible relationship does KCIII’s health have with the cognitive decline of POTUS?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Both are reasonable subjects for speculation, I just don’t see the automatic link
Two essentially incapacitated heads of state, while the official story is “nothing (or not much) to see here”0 -
To be fair Putin has lost it recently.Harper said:
To be fair Neil has lost it recently.Sandpit said:Andrew Neil not a fan of the Putin interview.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13065007/Tucker-Carlson-Vladimir-Putin-stunt-Hitler-concentration-camps-Russian-President-mad-bad-dangerous-fool-ANDREW-NEIL.html0 -
Well, that was grim. Someone collapsed at the pool; staff and medics were doing CPR as I left.
Fuckety fuck fuck.0 -
Social conservativsm? The pro gay marriage, pro abortion Tories who still preside over record immigration are hardly that bar Brexit.Stuartinromford said:
Here's the funny bit;HYUFD said:
Brexit, the need for more affordable housing and the fact after 10 years of Tory rule are all factors.linto said:This thread from the FT showing why young people aren't conservative these days should be massively worrying for the cons and their current trajectory, I doubt it will make much impact on them though.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1755915215995113526?t=8TUF20XNz3EIa6w_yUSjXg&s=19
However as the chart shows, other western conservative parties do not have as big an age gap in their support, so things can change, even if in all nations sampled the old vote more conservative than the young
What we actually see is that young people who look like they *should be Tories* are not Tories.
Here’s the US for comparison.
Young or old, conservative Americans vote Republican. But many young Brits with Conservative-aligned views and circumstances don’t vote Tory.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1755915255136276781
The reason I say funny is that the Conservative successes of 2015-9 were driven by Red Wall Theory- the idea that there were people in northern towns who really ought to be voting Conservative, but weren't. But by leaning towards them, especially with social conservatism, Nimbyomics and B*****, the Conservative party has repelled younger people who, in previous decades, would by now be skipping along the path to being loyal Tories.
Yes they need to build more homes but a lot of Tory councils lost control to nimby LDs/Independents/Greens in May precisely when their local plans proposed that.
Brexit is an issue but more young people voted for Brexit than are voting Tory now, Tory leakage to Reform is not a problem Trump's GOP has to deal with. If on the other hand Haley somehow was GOP nominee and Trump went independent they would have a problem1 -
Poor work ethics and far better benefits, simple. No free houses in USA , you geta small cheque and you are on your own, no spoon feeding there.rottenborough said:Fascinating. Why is UK so different?
"Furthermore, fears that generous aid during the pandemic would undermine America’s work ethic — that adults would leave the labor force and never come back — proved totally wrong. A new paper from the San Francisco Fed is titled “Why Is Prime-Age Labor Force Participation So High?” It notes that Americans between 25 and 54 are more likely to be in the work force now than they were at any time since the early 2000s."
NY Times0 -
A California governor is not who the Dems need to hold the rustbelt states Biden won148grss said:
I mean the person who has done the most manoeuvring is Gavin Newsom. He's been doing spots on Fox, had a televised debate with DeSantis, has been visiting some states (although not the ones that are clearly early primary states, but still). I think he has it on his mind that weird stuff may happen at the convention or the VP slot is going to open up. I mean, he may have a deal with Kamala and the WH to switch jobs - if his team backed Kamala for Cali governor and he slid onto the ticket, that could help ease any painful ego on Kamala's part.Stuartinromford said:
So who else do the Dems have and why haven't we heard of them up to now?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…1 -
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?0 -
No other OECD county has copied an NHS, yet no-one thinks why.turbotubbs said:
The NHS isn't for sale. What will happen will be services will be commissioned by the NHS - this is not 'selling' the NHS, despite what lefties like to chant.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
Realistically people in the UK need to look at how healthcare is delivered in other countries. The NHS is great in many ways, but its not the only way to provide universal healthcare. The idea of free at the point of use can be maintained in other ways (mandated health insurance that is genuinely linked to health provision, for instance).
Look at what works really well elsewhere, and copy that.2 -
."Jury rules for climate scientist Michael Mann in long-running defamation case -- Verdict punishes bloggers who compared scientist’s global warming work to molestation" by Paul Voosen (@voooos) for @ScienceMagazine ...
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1755947825286852865
0 -
I’m quite conflicted on Streeting. I served eight years with him on my London Council, and interacted with him both in public and in private meetings, especially during the years when the council was balanced with no overall control.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
If I had to sort people in public life into good guys and bad guys, he would go into the good guy column. His backstory is impressive and I am sure his motivation, in the round, is good. He’s certainly a capable and rising politician, if perhaps with self-confidence running somewhat ahead of his insight and ability. If he becomes our health minister after the GE I’d be cheering him on in what is often a poisoned chalice.
Yet I’ve seen him in the council chamber, cynically speaking against, in administration, the very things that his colleagues had championed in opposition. I stood next to him in a public meeting with the Borough’s voluntary sector, in 2014, when he made them a promise that he broke not once, but three times, as soon as his party got into power.
Streeting would sell his grandmother if it was a choice between that, or his career, and has passed age 40 with little work experience beyond the world of politics and pressure groups, and opened this week’s QT with a diatribe that reminded us of the shouty student politico that has always been his public persona.
I wish him well, but I’d guess it’s 50/50 whether his legacy will be that of someone from a disadvantaged background who went on to achieve great things, or of someone who was always from the beginning a careerist politico who will eventually leave our national politics in no better a state than he found it.6 -
'A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom,' so that rules out Harry and Parliament would surely amend the Act to remove Andrew, so that leaves AnneVerulamius said:
Section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 states that the Regent is the next in line, subject to being of age etc. Parliament does not decide, except if there is a new Act of course.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/body0 -
BUILD MORE HOUSES!!!isam said:Doesn’t this graph imply it was some other party’s fault?
The UK’s Conservative party is on the brink of a generational wipeout. The single most important factor driving this is the dramatic breakdown of upward social mobility on.ft.com/3SSPGeP
https://x.com/ft/status/1755925035284320433?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q1 -
Fascinating, thank you.IanB2 said:
I’m quite conflicted on Streeting. I served eight years with him on my London Council, and interacted with him both in public and in private meetings, especially during the years when the council was balanced with no overall control.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
If I had to sort people in public life into good guys and bad guys, he would go into the good guy column. His backstory is impressive and I am sure his motivation, in the round, is good. He’s certainly a capable and rising politician, if perhaps with self-confidence running somewhat ahead of his insight and ability. If he becomes our health minister after the GE I’d be cheering him on in what is often a poisoned chalice.
Yet I’ve seen him in the council chamber, cynically speaking against, in administration, the very things that his colleagues had championed in opposition. I stood next to him in a public meeting with the Borough’s voluntary sector, in 2014, when he made them a promise that he broke not once, but three times, as soon as his party got into power.
Streeting would sell his grandmother if it was a choice between that, or his career, and has passed age 40 with little work experience beyond the world of politics and pressure groups, and opened this week’s QT with a diatribe that reminded us of the shouty student politico that has always been his public persona.
I wish him well, but I’d guess it’s 50/50 whether his legacy will be that of someone from a disadvantaged background who went on to achieve great things, or of someone who was always from the beginning a careerist politico who will eventually leave our national politics in no better a state than he found it.3 -
Yes. His image has been carefully polished the last few years but there were always concerns he didnt do enough.Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?0 -
Only one has the nuclear footballGardenwalker said:
Just the parallel.Leon said:
What possible relationship does KCIII’s health have with the cognitive decline of POTUS?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Both are reasonable subjects for speculation, I just don’t see the automatic link
Two essentially incapacitated heads of state, while the official story is “nothing (or not much) to see here”
I agree there is no way back for Biden from this. It was a disastrous day for him0 -
NZ essentially has an NHS.Sandpit said:
No other OECD county has copied an NHS, yet no-one thinks why.turbotubbs said:
The NHS isn't for sale. What will happen will be services will be commissioned by the NHS - this is not 'selling' the NHS, despite what lefties like to chant.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
Realistically people in the UK need to look at how healthcare is delivered in other countries. The NHS is great in many ways, but its not the only way to provide universal healthcare. The idea of free at the point of use can be maintained in other ways (mandated health insurance that is genuinely linked to health provision, for instance).
Look at what works really well elsewhere, and copy that.
0 -
Hmm, the famous "priced in" - to which the only response is "will it still sell?"Nigelb said:
The problem is - for the Dems as much as the GOP - that the right have been crying wolf on this for so long that everyone discounts it.kinabalu said:
No that's not a terrible thing to think or say. I'm not wishing a long drawn out decline on my Mum. However calling people with AD "demented" - this, whilst no lie, isn't a great innovation imo. Still, you're the writer.Leon said:
Sympathies right back at you. It is a pretty horrific illness. It is terrible to say, but it might have been better if my poor Mum had keeled over with a heart attack a few years back (she's had a pacemaker for a decade). But we are where we arekinabalu said:
Er, I just said I hope Biden doesn't run. So, yes. And it's a piece of cake to distinguish reasonable concerns about his age and health from Trumpist propaganda. You just look at the language, the tone, and who it's coming from.Leon said:
Have you not had someone close suffer dementia?kinabalu said:
He may or may not be in the early stages of dementia (people being definitive either way are ignorable) but there’s no doubt about the lapses and frailty. He’s been a good president but he really shouldn’t be offering himself for a 2nd term. I hope he has a change of heart and doesn’t. I think this is very possible.FF43 said:Leon and William do have a point. It's not whether Biden is more demented than Trump - I'm not sure he is and in any case he's clearly a better person and actually not a bad president on his track record.
No. For the rest of us Biden's primary task is to stop Trump. He managed that successfully in 2020 when others maybe wouldn't have. Will he manage it again in 2024? If not, we need someone else.
With the shit swirling around both of them I’m of the view that the ‘nailed on’ Trump Biden rematch is no more than a 50/50 shot to happen. I have it laid at 1.4 and I’m happy with that. But if it does happen I’ll be rooting 1000% for Joe. If he wins and then has to stand down at some point due to health reasons, so what. It will be managed. The risks of Trump2 are on a different scale.
So in a nutshell what I say is, “Go Joe please”, but if you don’t “Go Joe!”
If not, count yourself lucky, it is deeply painful to watch - possibly worse for the witnesses than it is for the demented
My mum was diagnosed with it last year, it distresses me greatly. I've also watched my older daughter's great granmother and now grandmother go down with it. I was quite close to the latter. And I've seen it in aunts, the parents of friends, etc. It is one of the great curses of modern times. we can keep people alive so long, but we can't save their minds
Biden looks exactly like these people, the dodderiness. the vagueness, the wandering, the truly spectacular memory losses, the confusion of identities, the decay of syntax in the speech, the inability to string sentences together; indeed, he looks like quite an advanced case. So bad, as the legal report says, that he cannot be prosecuted. He is too senile to stand trial - that is their judgement. Let that sink in
Biden is right there in front of us, exhibiting all this. It is not some kind of pro-Trump propaganda to point this out
And, if you really want Trump beaten, it is better that this is accepted and Biden is persuaded to retire, and they find someone younger
I still quite like my idea of Kamala, with Barack Obama as veep (if that is legal). I reckon that would beat Trump soundly
On the dementia, I'm sorry to hear this about your mum, and snap. Mine got an AD diagnosis a year ago, sadly. And boy is it sad. Worse for my dad, probably, at the moment. He's become a fulltime carer at 90.
The only saving grace for my Mum is that her partner also has dementia and is losing the plot at about the same pace, and they are in nice sheltered housing. So they are kind of sinking together, half aware of things
To be sane and lucid, like your father, and forced to care for a demented spouse, God that's tough
One reason I am sure Biden has dementia is his way of interweaving real stories (eg about his dead son Beau) with clear confabulations (Beau did not die in Fallujah), constructing a new reality impromptu, for no obvious reason. My mum does this constantly
I think it is the brain replacing missing memories, in a kind of panic, to create any old narrative, even if obviously bogus. Very sad
Joe and "the journey"? Is he on it? If so where? I truly don't know. There's not enough in the public domain for me to say. Certainly not enough to be issuing a firm diagnosis. But ok, you clearly feel you can.
But the odds are no longer in Biden's favour.
I find your last sentence a tad concerning, if you mean vs Trump, you being one of the founding members of the Trump Bear club. TBH the only thing I'm certain of right now is I have no idea where this is all going or how it's going to get there.
Fwiw when I spool forward a year and picture who's in the White House, that person is neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden.0 -
I'm also slightly interested in what, exactly, Putin thinks he's going to get if he wins.edmundintokyo said:
He's been saying this for a while. As far as I can make out based on some excellent podcasts (War on the Rocks and Geopolitics Decanted) what actually happened was that there was a negotiation, but it was stuck on what the Russians euphemistically called "neutrality". Their demand was that there be no more foreign military support for Ukraine, and western-supplied weapons be removed. Since the only place Ukraine was going to get weapons to defend themselves was from the west, this was effectively a demand that Ukraine demilitarize.isam said:Here’s a tricky one
Vladimir Putin has claimed Boris Johnson is to blame for the continuation of the war in Ukraine.
The Russian President said he was ready to end the war 18 months ago, but that the former Prime Minister put pressure on Ukraine's leaders to back out of the peace deal. Johnson has dismissed the claims as ‘propaganda’.
https://x.com/gmb/status/1755841716576206872?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
This was happening in April, 2022, after Putin had attempted a full invasion of Ukraine and been partially repelled. They'd managed to get the Russians away from Kiev, and discovered the horrific war crimes at Bucha. Previously there had been multiple deals with Russia that Russia had broken, and after they invaded Crimea they'd said they had no intention of invading the rest of Ukraine. Initially (before the Ukrainians inflicted a partial defeat on them) they'd been making much more extensive demands, for example that the elected leaders of Ukraine be handed over and put on trial. So obviously if Ukraine disarmed it wouldn't be long before Putin came back for the rest of the country and tried again to do what he'd just failed to do.
It seems to be true that when Boris Johnson visited Kiev he told them that they'd be absolutely barking mad to do a deal with Russia on those terms. But not having cornflakes for brains, the Ukrainians already knew this.
Let's say Ukraine folds today, at 5pm, giving Russia everything it wants. Zelensky and the Army chiefs are rounded up and shot, along with 100,000 others. Putin claims they went on holiday to Siberia and doesn't know where they are.
What does he think will happen then? That every country that used to do deals with him will believe a word he says? That he can do more 'deals'?
No one would deal with Russia under Putin on anything other than 'cash and carry' (and those are his supposed allies like Iran and China) because any other deal (like paying for gas upfront - or an agreement not to invade somewhere) would be broken as soon as Putin felt like it.
Putin hasn't realised, but Russia cannot be a normal country again until he's gone. No one will do any long term deals with the country. If Russia/Putin wants something, some bastard will sell it to him, but its payment in advance. No credit given.0 -
Congrats Harper. You’re the first Russian troll to do a passable imitation of normality. Capital letters, no weird ellipses…Harper said:
Yes. His image has been carefully polished the last few years but there were always concerns he didnt do enough.Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?2 -
The only relationship would be if they had both had a similar medical procedure in the last few years.Gardenwalker said:
Just the parallel.Leon said:
What possible relationship does KCIII’s health have with the cognitive decline of POTUS?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Both are reasonable subjects for speculation, I just don’t see the automatic link
Two essentially incapacitated heads of state, while the official story is “nothing (or not much) to see here”0 -
...
Not funny.isam said:
Are Biden and the King both double vaxyxe?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Off to Siberia with you.0 -
It isn't just home ownership of course. There's a sense that opportunities are shrinking more generally.0
-
Who? Google only suggests a footballer from the noughties...Harper said:
Well Joey Barton on twitter has just announced he sat through the whole thing so theres that.AlsoLei said:
There's no way that anything like that many will have sat through the whole thing. It wouldn't even have made good background watching whilst doing something else.Harper said:
I cant imagine more than a couple of million sat through the whole 2 hours. Then maybe another 5 to 10 million watched lengthy segments but not the whole thing.AlsoLei said:
Yeah, I spent only a few minutes skipping through it, so maybe I missed some of the better bits - but from what I saw it was deathly dull with Putin doing his hard-faced bulldozer routine, and Carlson mostly looking lost.FF43 said:Can't claim to have watched every minute of Putin's two hour session with Carlson but a couple of mini takes. Putin starts the session with "If I may I'll spend 30 seconds covering the history. Half an hour later he had got to the 19th Century having started in the 8th Century. Tucker finally gets in a weak "That's very interesting". Which in a way it is because Putin seems genuinely motivated by historical grievance.
The look on Tucker's face when Putin says "You are" in response to who cut Nordstream. ("You will leave for the Siberian work camp following this interview. Ha! Only joking")
A coup for Carlson to get Putin but I have a feeling it didn't turn out exactly as he hoped. Putin isn't one of them. He's a highly focused spy chief and dictator while MAGA is self indulgence.
88 million Twitter impressions at the time of writing - so fewer than his interviews with Andrew Tate or Viktor Orban, and a fifth of the one he did with Javier Milei. When you convert it to actual viewership, it'll be around what Laura Kuenssberg gets when she interviews Sunak or Starmer.
So much for the most-watched interview in history!
As an aside, Twitter desperately needs to improve its video player - a youtube-like graph showing the most-watched bits would do wonders for something like this. Hardly anyone's going to sit through the whole 2 hours of droning, but plenty might be willing to watch the good bits if they were easy to find.
As for watching lengthy segments... really? Which lengthy segments are worth watching? Were there any? And even if there were, you can't even give me a link to them since Twitter's basic video player is so poor.
Sure, plenty of people will see clips once others have done the work of finding the best bits and uploading them to youtube or wherever. But, right now, absolutely no-one is excitedly posting "hey, seek to around 84m37s, and watch the 15 minute segment that follows - it's really interesting!"0 -
Rent / House pricesFrankBooth said:It isn't just home ownership of course. There's a sense that opportunities are shrinking more generally.
Stagnant wages
Student loans
Higher taxes on the class-formerly-known-as-upwardly mobile.
Extortionate childcare.
Degraded public services.
Harder to export.
Harder to travel and work in Europe.3 -
There is little or no evidence of the King having terminal cancer. Currently, at point of diagnosis, you have a 50% chance of being alive 10 years later when diagnosed with cancer. Depending on which cancer he has, he could have a very high chance of a complete cure - e.g. my leukeamia (APML) is estimated at 85-90% chance of cure on diagnosis now (and the danger period is prior to, and just after diagnosis).Gardenwalker said:
Just the parallel.Leon said:
What possible relationship does KCIII’s health have with the cognitive decline of POTUS?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Both are reasonable subjects for speculation, I just don’t see the automatic link
Two essentially incapacitated heads of state, while the official story is “nothing (or not much) to see here”1 -
A Scouse footballer with a Parisian accent no less.AlsoLei said:
Who? Google only suggests a footballer from the noughties...Harper said:
Well Joey Barton on twitter has just announced he sat through the whole thing so theres that.AlsoLei said:
There's no way that anything like that many will have sat through the whole thing. It wouldn't even have made good background watching whilst doing something else.Harper said:
I cant imagine more than a couple of million sat through the whole 2 hours. Then maybe another 5 to 10 million watched lengthy segments but not the whole thing.AlsoLei said:
Yeah, I spent only a few minutes skipping through it, so maybe I missed some of the better bits - but from what I saw it was deathly dull with Putin doing his hard-faced bulldozer routine, and Carlson mostly looking lost.FF43 said:Can't claim to have watched every minute of Putin's two hour session with Carlson but a couple of mini takes. Putin starts the session with "If I may I'll spend 30 seconds covering the history. Half an hour later he had got to the 19th Century having started in the 8th Century. Tucker finally gets in a weak "That's very interesting". Which in a way it is because Putin seems genuinely motivated by historical grievance.
The look on Tucker's face when Putin says "You are" in response to who cut Nordstream. ("You will leave for the Siberian work camp following this interview. Ha! Only joking")
A coup for Carlson to get Putin but I have a feeling it didn't turn out exactly as he hoped. Putin isn't one of them. He's a highly focused spy chief and dictator while MAGA is self indulgence.
88 million Twitter impressions at the time of writing - so fewer than his interviews with Andrew Tate or Viktor Orban, and a fifth of the one he did with Javier Milei. When you convert it to actual viewership, it'll be around what Laura Kuenssberg gets when she interviews Sunak or Starmer.
So much for the most-watched interview in history!
As an aside, Twitter desperately needs to improve its video player - a youtube-like graph showing the most-watched bits would do wonders for something like this. Hardly anyone's going to sit through the whole 2 hours of droning, but plenty might be willing to watch the good bits if they were easy to find.
As for watching lengthy segments... really? Which lengthy segments are worth watching? Were there any? And even if there were, you can't even give me a link to them since Twitter's basic video player is so poor.
Sure, plenty of people will see clips once others have done the work of finding the best bits and uploading them to youtube or wherever. But, right now, absolutely no-one is excitedly posting "hey, seek to around 84m37s, and watch the 15 minute segment that follows - it's really interesting!"1 -
But the moment you fiddle around with inheritance rights, you've given up the entire idea of hereditary monarchy.HYUFD said:
'A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom,' so that rules out Harry and Parliament would surely amend the Act to remove Andrew, so that leaves AnneVerulamius said:
Section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 states that the Regent is the next in line, subject to being of age etc. Parliament does not decide, except if there is a new Act of course.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/body1 -
I’d agree, and I hope you’re right, but the “news” kind of vibrates with cover-up.turbotubbs said:
There is little or no evidence of the King having terminal cancer. Currently, at point of diagnosis, you have a 50% chance of being alive 10 years later when diagnosed with cancer. Depending on which cancer he has, he could have a very high chance of a complete cure - e.g. my leukeamia (APML) is estimated at 85-90% chance of cure on diagnosis now (and the danger period is prior to, and just after diagnosis).Gardenwalker said:
Just the parallel.Leon said:
What possible relationship does KCIII’s health have with the cognitive decline of POTUS?Gardenwalker said:Biden won’t stand this year.
I think yesterday the veil was ripped away and there’s now no going back. Biden no longer has the mental faculties to be President.
Admitting as much does not amount to a desire for Trump to be President, quite the reverse. The Democrats need to open up the contest soon. Harris, who simply has a grating personality, is not a viable runner either.
Having said all above, it’s funny that nobody’s paired Biden’s frailty with the perfectly believable hypothesis that KCIII has terminal cancer. Some rich ironies here.
The West looks astonishingly weak and decadent, as Putin has his history lecture freely amplified by Elon Musk…
Both are reasonable subjects for speculation, I just don’t see the automatic link
Two essentially incapacitated heads of state, while the official story is “nothing (or not much) to see here”
1 -
Not great. My wife's father went for a training swim one day and died at the pool. Not great. Both her parents have died suddenly, and it raises the question - which is easier for the family? A sudden death with no warning, or a long slow decline?JosiasJessop said:Well, that was grim. Someone collapsed at the pool; staff and medics were doing CPR as I left.
Fuckety fuck fuck.0 -
Has Putin been seen offering comfort to a younger, female colleague in true Neil style?Sandpit said:
To be fair Putin has lost it recently.Harper said:
To be fair Neil has lost it recently.Sandpit said:Andrew Neil not a fan of the Putin interview.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13065007/Tucker-Carlson-Vladimir-Putin-stunt-Hitler-concentration-camps-Russian-President-mad-bad-dangerous-fool-ANDREW-NEIL.html
1 -
Yes. If he just says SKS good SNP Baaaad, that doesn't resolve the basic issue if SKS goes all Tory and the voters don't want blueberry muffins dipped in pinko icing.Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure how more Sarwar fixes anything, his main function is to find some way of smoothing over reverse ferrets on positions of principle(sic) that no longer fit in with the Starmer plan. Lab/SLab's mantra is vote for us for change; that change seems to be that the Scottish sub branch office is more of a sub branch office than ever.Carnyx said:
Fair enough. Labour lefty? Not according to the Electoral Compass analyses - Labour definitely well on the way to joining the LDs. But that's a quibble. And tomorrow is tomorrow.Eabhal said:
I think Labour are a lefty party, though Starmer is something of an unknown himself. As equally likely to be unexpectedly left-wing as the opposite - he has, for example, been exposed to the more extreme symptoms of poverty throughout his career.Carnyx said:
On the other hand, there's more to worry about for Slab in terms of London HQ and their overlord SKS. Labour in Scotland have been pretending to be a leftie party - the Rutherglen by election was a prize example of adopting SNP policies for expedience. The more attention SKS gets and the more he trims his sails to the much larger market in England the more the discrepancy will become clear. Interesting.noneoftheabove said:
Agree, this is a good poll for the SNP not Labour. Their leadership chaos not been in the news so much recently possibly having an impact along with them benefitting from Labours position on the Israel-Palestinian war. Would expect it to be closer by the GE.Selebian said:SNP's lead? Given all the posts we see from Scotch experts on here on SNP troubles, I assumed they were at (England) Tory levels of support!
ETA: And Starner is some senior SNP bod who reacted to the falling poll lead news with 'God!' ?
ETA2: Oh, and first like, um, the SNP?
But I entirely agree on the England/Scotland tradeoff. It depends where the marginal gains are - in England, most likely, due to the much larger number of seats. It would be smart to give Sarwar a much higher profile on the campaign literature to help dispel the effect though.
While personally deeply disappointed, I think the line of the green stuff is fine from an electoral POV - gives him an opportunity to jump in on Tory mismanagement of the public finances over and over again and closes off an obvious attack.
Look also at SKS doing U-turns on such things as deigning to allow the Scots an indyref for which they voted to have, no doubt to try and avoid the repeat of 'In Salmond's pocket' posters, photoshopped for SKS and Mr Yousaf. So they can't differentiate too much anyway, and oif course the "national" media in London will give SKS lots of attention which will overwhelm the 3 minutes Mr Sarwar gets if he is lucky ... it's not as if the latter is leader of a political party anyway, as the Electoral Commission knows very well.0 -
Yes someone collapsed at my pool a few weeks ago. I also witnessed a poor young woman collapsing on the train whilst on holiday in Europe. These things seem to be occurring more often now sadly.turbotubbs said:
Not great. My wife's father went for a training swim one day and died at the pool. Not great. Both her parents have died suddenly, and it raises the question - which is easier for the family? A sudden death with no warning, or a long slow decline?JosiasJessop said:Well, that was grim. Someone collapsed at the pool; staff and medics were doing CPR as I left.
Fuckety fuck fuck.0 -
Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
0 -
The obvious question is, do you feel better off now or in 2010?Gardenwalker said:
Rent / House pricesFrankBooth said:It isn't just home ownership of course. There's a sense that opportunities are shrinking more generally.
Stagnant wages
Student loans
Higher taxes on the class-formerly-known-as-upwardly mobile.
Extortionate childcare.
Degraded public services.
Harder to export.
Harder to travel and work in Europe.
But.
The problem is I have to adjust for the fact that the 2010s were my 30s, where my middle-class professional career advanced in leaps and bounds and I made a lot of money, although that probably wasn't the case for the majority of people.
So, ceteris paribus, I ask myself, would I prefer to be 30 now, or 30 in 2010? And on that metric, it's clear to me that the economy, opportunities, public services, housing and all the other things you mention have clearly degraded in that time. Meaning that measure for measure, I would now have fewer opportunities to get ahead, enjoy a worse standard of living, and worst of all, have that sinking feeling that things will only get worse, not better, from here, under the current government.4 -
It was quite striking how [edit] she/he/it kept retweeting a notorious twitter account infamous for a horrific episode of misogyny. I never had the heart to point that out.Dura_Ace said:
Remember Carlotta's obsession with Scottish trans shit? That was 10x a day for two and half years. Still the gold standard in single subject off topic shitposting and unlikely ever to be surpassed.Benpointer said:
I admire your persistence. Will you keep this up for the entire life of the Starmer premiership (I'm guessing circa 10 years)?isam said:It’s been 17 months since Nick Brown was suspended from the Labour Party following serious allegations.
While he’s standing down at the next GE surely he should be held accountable for his actions whilst he’s still an MP?
Starmer promised a swift investigation.
What happened?
https://x.com/agrippaspqr/status/1755931528750670036?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
A pop or two every day?
I have no doubt the material will be there for you to do it but it does require dedication. And to what end? It'll make not a blind bit of difference.0 -
I know right. I think it must be the covid vaccine - what do you think?Harper said:
Yes someone collapsed at my pool a few weeks ago. I also witnessed a poor young woman collapsing on the train whilst on holiday in Europe. These things seem to be occurring more often now sadly.turbotubbs said:
Not great. My wife's father went for a training swim one day and died at the pool. Not great. Both her parents have died suddenly, and it raises the question - which is easier for the family? A sudden death with no warning, or a long slow decline?JosiasJessop said:Well, that was grim. Someone collapsed at the pool; staff and medics were doing CPR as I left.
Fuckety fuck fuck.3 -
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.2 -
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.0 -
I'm a Republican by conviction (and ironically, partly inheritance - my mother's view is that hereditary monarch is a silly idea). But. I've been in the presence of Royalty precisely twice, and it made an impression on me both times.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
First time, the then Prince of Wales, now KCIII, visited my place of work, a state-funded scientific organisation, and have a short speech to us all. The second time, the present Duke of Edinburgh did the honours at my daughter's graduation.
Despite my Republican views I was definitely more impressed then I would have been by some minor government minister, or local functionary, performing the same tasks. There is definitely something a bit different about being in the Royal presence. I'm certain that anyone who was in the not particularly fussed one way or the other category would be considerably swayed by a similar experience.
If William, and that generation onwards, do hide themselves away, it will be a huge boost for the Republican cause.1 -
Wasn’t the real life example President Reagan diagnosed dementia had been covered up for his re-election?Leon said:Isn't this a plot thread in the West Wing?
Jed Bartlet has some long term medical condition which he illegally hides from the voters? He plays chess with aides so they can tell him when he's going gaga
IIRC the drama says that the public must legally be informed of relevant medical issues pertaining to POTUS
What about the argument voters know they arn’t just 1. electing a President, but 2. White House administration, so are making assessment not on which candidate makes most forgetful gaffs, but which would be the stronger administration, AND 3. the party most likely to quickly retire off the president once they are too far gone?
For 2 & 3 it’s a clear democrat win, for 1 something of a toss up?
0 -
I think William needs to be a little careful with this “normal life priorities” thing. I get he wants to have as normal a family life as possible and wants to be with his wife whilst she convalesces however he needs to not miss the glaring great issue, which Harry doesn’t get, in that the only reason they can live the lifestyle they do, with the access to properties, staff, money, top notch medical, security is because they are Royals.Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Neither of them have made their money off their own efforts, or the contacts or access to people and networks, and so they have/had a responsibility to the tax payer to put their duties first. If you don’t want the duty then you don’t get the massive perks.
So if William wants the lifestyle he has then he has to buck up and if he doesn’t want to do the duties as he wants to be normal then he needs to get a career in something appropriate to his abilities and see how much time he gets off to be a family man as I’m sure most fathers in the UK don’t get that much and don’t get what he considers a family life.3 -
My Aussie ex was a republican; wanted nothing to do with the Royal Family. We were then luck to get an opportunity to have dinner with Princess Anne, after which my ex became a royalist!LostPassword said:
I'm a Republican by conviction (and ironically, partly inheritance - my mother's view is that hereditary monarch is a silly idea). But. I've been in the presence of Royalty precisely twice, and it made an impression on me both times.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
First time, the then Prince of Wales, now KCIII, visited my place of work, a state-funded scientific organisation, and have a short speech to us all. The second time, the present Duke of Edinburgh did the honours at my daughter's graduation.
Despite my Republican views I was definitely more impressed then I would have been by some minor government minister, or local functionary, performing the same tasks. There is definitely something a bit different about being in the Royal presence. I'm certain that anyone who was in the not particularly fussed one way or the other category would be considerably swayed by a similar experience.
If William, and that generation onwards, do hide themselves away, it will be a huge boost for the Republican cause.2 -
I assume it would be a hatred of being in the public eye as a result of what that did to his mother.Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?0 -
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this siteIanB2 said:
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.0 -
Queen Victoria after Albert died ... big boost for republicanism, and not the Irish kind either (though it didn't do any harm).LostPassword said:
I'm a Republican by conviction (and ironically, partly inheritance - my mother's view is that hereditary monarch is a silly idea). But. I've been in the presence of Royalty precisely twice, and it made an impression on me both times.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
First time, the then Prince of Wales, now KCIII, visited my place of work, a state-funded scientific organisation, and have a short speech to us all. The second time, the present Duke of Edinburgh did the honours at my daughter's graduation.
Despite my Republican views I was definitely more impressed then I would have been by some minor government minister, or local functionary, performing the same tasks. There is definitely something a bit different about being in the Royal presence. I'm certain that anyone who was in the not particularly fussed one way or the other category would be considerably swayed by a similar experience.
If William, and that generation onwards, do hide themselves away, it will be a huge boost for the Republican cause.0 -
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.Leon said:
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this siteIanB2 said:
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.2 -
No one else copies the NHSSandpit said:
No other OECD county has copied an NHS, yet no-one thinks why.turbotubbs said:
The NHS isn't for sale. What will happen will be services will be commissioned by the NHS - this is not 'selling' the NHS, despite what lefties like to chant.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
Realistically people in the UK need to look at how healthcare is delivered in other countries. The NHS is great in many ways, but its not the only way to provide universal healthcare. The idea of free at the point of use can be maintained in other ways (mandated health insurance that is genuinely linked to health provision, for instance).
Look at what works really well elsewhere, and copy that.
The Norns will never vote for reunification cos of the NHS
Quite often the same people.0 -
Hitler of course only ever wanted a chunk of Czechoslovakia.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through3 -
I don't think William is anything other than that which appears to be: a nervous wreck of a middle aged man with a haggard wife and weird kids that look like they are off the cover of an Enid Blyton book.AlsoLei said:
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.0 -
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than SwindonHarper said:
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.Leon said:
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this siteIanB2 said:
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
A prophet without honour etc
0 -
Yes, precisely. The precedent was mentioned in The Guardian article.Carnyx said:
Queen Victoria after Albert died ...LostPassword said:
I'm a Republican by conviction (and ironically, partly inheritance - my mother's view is that hereditary monarch is a silly idea). But. I've been in the presence of Royalty precisely twice, and it made an impression on me both times.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
First time, the then Prince of Wales, now KCIII, visited my place of work, a state-funded scientific organisation, and have a short speech to us all. The second time, the present Duke of Edinburgh did the honours at my daughter's graduation.
Despite my Republican views I was definitely more impressed then I would have been by some minor government minister, or local functionary, performing the same tasks. There is definitely something a bit different about being in the Royal presence. I'm certain that anyone who was in the not particularly fussed one way or the other category would be considerably swayed by a similar experience.
If William, and that generation onwards, do hide themselves away, it will be a huge boost for the Republican cause.
They really need Harry back.2 -
Leon is frequently wasted on this site, you are right.Harper said:
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.Leon said:
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this siteIanB2 said:
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.12 -
I'm not sure the domicile point does rule out Harry, due to the difference between residence and domicile. He possibly is ruled out but it's legally debatable - the fact he's in California most of the time isn't decisive.HYUFD said:
'A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom,' so that rules out Harry and Parliament would surely amend the Act to remove Andrew, so that leaves AnneVerulamius said:
Section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 states that the Regent is the next in line, subject to being of age etc. Parliament does not decide, except if there is a new Act of course.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/body
Also, even if Andrew and Harry were ruled out, Beatrice, Eugenia, Edward, and Louise Mountbatten-Windsor are all of age and above Princess Anne in the line of succession.0 -
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.AlsoLei said:
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
William needs to pull his finger out.
The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.0 -
You hugely underestimate PB’ers if you think that a response about my dog will distract them from noticing that you offer no response whatsoever on your unhealthy fascination with Putin, your now clearly flawed prior adulation of him, and your many failed predictions of other putative saviours who have simply gone on to crash and burn.Leon said:
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this siteIanB2 said:
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.Leon said:Halfway through tucker Putin
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
Shape up, or ship out.
8 -
To be fair, it looks like, in the Republic, that I am approaching an impasse whereby I can't buy a house, because I can't get a mortgage, because I can't get life insurance, because I'm stuck on a waiting list for minor plastic surgery to remove a benign cyst.Theuniondivvie said:
No one else copies the NHSSandpit said:
No other OECD county has copied an NHS, yet no-one thinks why.turbotubbs said:
The NHS isn't for sale. What will happen will be services will be commissioned by the NHS - this is not 'selling' the NHS, despite what lefties like to chant.148grss said:
The man who can never stop talking about how pleased he is to have the opportunity to sell off bits of the NHS? Sure fire way to make SKS's incoming government even more unpopular.rottenborough said:Wes Streeting needs to be front and centre of Lab's election campaign.
He's a top class communicator with last night's QT as just one example.
Realistically people in the UK need to look at how healthcare is delivered in other countries. The NHS is great in many ways, but its not the only way to provide universal healthcare. The idea of free at the point of use can be maintained in other ways (mandated health insurance that is genuinely linked to health provision, for instance).
Look at what works really well elsewhere, and copy that.
The Norns will never vote for reunification cos of the NHS
Quite often the same people.
If I was back in Britain, using the NHS, they'd never have put me on the waiting list to start with, and it wouldn't be a problem!0 -
There’s always the exciting hinterland of pegging and the Panigale.Dura_Ace said:
I don't think William is anything other than that which appears to be: a nervous wreck of a middle aged man with a haggard wife and weird kids that look like they are off the cover of an Enid Blyton book.AlsoLei said:
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Not at the same time one hopes.0 -
.
Harry is still domiciled in the UK I would guess. He is not currently resident in the UK but that is a different legal concept.HYUFD said:
'A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom,' so that rules out Harry and Parliament would surely amend the Act to remove Andrew, so that leaves AnneVerulamius said:
Section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 states that the Regent is the next in line, subject to being of age etc. Parliament does not decide, except if there is a new Act of course.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/body0 -
Solution looking for a problem imvho. Yellow and red cards work fine.Sandpit said:LOL that football has suspended their “Blue Card” idea.
They still like the sin bin idea, which is good, but they managed to screw up the announcement and process
If I had to change anything, I’d change the rules about penalty kicks. It’s an incredibly harsh punishment for often very minor infractions. Goal scoring opportunity, fair enough.
Also yellow card for taking your shirt off remains the silliest law in the game.0 -
Yes. But, the Tories did nothing to fix it.isam said:Doesn’t this graph imply it was some other party’s fault?
The UK’s Conservative party is on the brink of a generational wipeout. The single most important factor driving this is the dramatic breakdown of upward social mobility on.ft.com/3SSPGeP
https://x.com/ft/status/1755925035284320433?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
House prices rose by 206% between 1997 and 2007. It was a big factor in Labour's landslide win in 2001, and probably made the difference between victory and defeat in 2005. But, after 2010, these 25-50 year old voters of 1997 switched over heavily towards the Tories. Now they're aged 50 to 75.
The problem is, the Tories, while appealing successfully to this group, were not interested in people who were not on the electoral register in 1997.
That said, at least home ownership rates seem to nudging upwards again.0 -
The Nordstream stuff is REALLY interesting0
-
No, I meant the odds of his still being the candidate by November.kinabalu said:
Hmm, the famous "priced in" - to which the only response is "will it still sell?"Nigelb said:
The problem is - for the Dems as much as the GOP - that the right have been crying wolf on this for so long that everyone discounts it.kinabalu said:
No that's not a terrible thing to think or say. I'm not wishing a long drawn out decline on my Mum. However calling people with AD "demented" - this, whilst no lie, isn't a great innovation imo. Still, you're the writer.Leon said:
Sympathies right back at you. It is a pretty horrific illness. It is terrible to say, but it might have been better if my poor Mum had keeled over with a heart attack a few years back (she's had a pacemaker for a decade). But we are where we arekinabalu said:
Er, I just said I hope Biden doesn't run. So, yes. And it's a piece of cake to distinguish reasonable concerns about his age and health from Trumpist propaganda. You just look at the language, the tone, and who it's coming from.Leon said:
Have you not had someone close suffer dementia?kinabalu said:
He may or may not be in the early stages of dementia (people being definitive either way are ignorable) but there’s no doubt about the lapses and frailty. He’s been a good president but he really shouldn’t be offering himself for a 2nd term. I hope he has a change of heart and doesn’t. I think this is very possible.FF43 said:Leon and William do have a point. It's not whether Biden is more demented than Trump - I'm not sure he is and in any case he's clearly a better person and actually not a bad president on his track record.
No. For the rest of us Biden's primary task is to stop Trump. He managed that successfully in 2020 when others maybe wouldn't have. Will he manage it again in 2024? If not, we need someone else.
With the shit swirling around both of them I’m of the view that the ‘nailed on’ Trump Biden rematch is no more than a 50/50 shot to happen. I have it laid at 1.4 and I’m happy with that. But if it does happen I’ll be rooting 1000% for Joe. If he wins and then has to stand down at some point due to health reasons, so what. It will be managed. The risks of Trump2 are on a different scale.
So in a nutshell what I say is, “Go Joe please”, but if you don’t “Go Joe!”
If not, count yourself lucky, it is deeply painful to watch - possibly worse for the witnesses than it is for the demented
My mum was diagnosed with it last year, it distresses me greatly. I've also watched my older daughter's great granmother and now grandmother go down with it. I was quite close to the latter. And I've seen it in aunts, the parents of friends, etc. It is one of the great curses of modern times. we can keep people alive so long, but we can't save their minds
Biden looks exactly like these people, the dodderiness. the vagueness, the wandering, the truly spectacular memory losses, the confusion of identities, the decay of syntax in the speech, the inability to string sentences together; indeed, he looks like quite an advanced case. So bad, as the legal report says, that he cannot be prosecuted. He is too senile to stand trial - that is their judgement. Let that sink in
Biden is right there in front of us, exhibiting all this. It is not some kind of pro-Trump propaganda to point this out
And, if you really want Trump beaten, it is better that this is accepted and Biden is persuaded to retire, and they find someone younger
I still quite like my idea of Kamala, with Barack Obama as veep (if that is legal). I reckon that would beat Trump soundly
On the dementia, I'm sorry to hear this about your mum, and snap. Mine got an AD diagnosis a year ago, sadly. And boy is it sad. Worse for my dad, probably, at the moment. He's become a fulltime carer at 90.
The only saving grace for my Mum is that her partner also has dementia and is losing the plot at about the same pace, and they are in nice sheltered housing. So they are kind of sinking together, half aware of things
To be sane and lucid, like your father, and forced to care for a demented spouse, God that's tough
One reason I am sure Biden has dementia is his way of interweaving real stories (eg about his dead son Beau) with clear confabulations (Beau did not die in Fallujah), constructing a new reality impromptu, for no obvious reason. My mum does this constantly
I think it is the brain replacing missing memories, in a kind of panic, to create any old narrative, even if obviously bogus. Very sad
Joe and "the journey"? Is he on it? If so where? I truly don't know. There's not enough in the public domain for me to say. Certainly not enough to be issuing a firm diagnosis. But ok, you clearly feel you can.
But the odds are no longer in Biden's favour.
I find your last sentence a tad concerning, if you mean vs Trump, you being one of the founding members of the Trump Bear club. TBH the only thing I'm certain of right now is I have no idea where this is all going or how it's going to get there.
Fwiw when I spool forward a year and picture who's in the White House, that person is neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden.
It might be unfair (probably is), but the drip, drip will be relentless.
Every time Biden gaffes from now on will be seen through the new lens.
When the 'liberal' press leads with "Special counsel report paints scathing picture of Biden’s memory", it shows how effective is the hit job.
18 USC 1924 is subject to a five year statute of limitations - which is why Trump is being charged (as he reoffended by lying and refusing to return classified documents), and Biden isn't.
You won't see that in any headlines, and probably not until paragraph 23, if at all.
Every lead story is 'Biden not be charged because he's senile'.2 -
No it’s not.Leon said:The Nordstream stuff is REALLY interesting
Putin adds nothing to what we already know/don’t know.2 -
No, his permanent home is now in CaliforniaVerulamius said:.
Harry is still domiciled in the UK I would guess. He is not currently resident in the UK but that is a different legal concept.HYUFD said:
'A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom,' so that rules out Harry and Parliament would surely amend the Act to remove Andrew, so that leaves AnneVerulamius said:
Section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 states that the Regent is the next in line, subject to being of age etc. Parliament does not decide, except if there is a new Act of course.HYUFD said:
Princess Anne, a regent can be just who Parliament chooses, doesn't need to be next in line of succession148grss said:
Lol, Prince Regent Harry would be hilarious - and again, could add a lot of otherwise pro monarchy people onto the republican side. Also, who else is there? Andrew? lol once moreLostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/body0 -
The body language and the demeanour of both of themGardenwalker said:
No it’s not.Leon said:The Nordstream stuff is REALLY interesting
Putin adds nothing to what we already know/don’t know.0 -
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.Gardenwalker said:
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.AlsoLei said:
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...Gardenwalker said:
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.AlsoLei said:
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.LostPassword said:The Guardian appear to be arguing for a larger Royal Family. Casino Royale has been busy with all the spare time he has away from pb.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/09/house-of-windsor-soft-regency-king-charles-prince-william
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits
Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits
Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
William needs to pull his finger out.
The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman0
