A new addition (or two) to the ever growing republican movement – politicalbetting.com
The normally compliant Daily Mail reporting on the demise of the Royals and accepting that the argument for a Republic is all too persuasive. The Royals days as Head of State are numbered. pic.twitter.com/nsa0oWq8Fr
Unfortunate timing...I imagine Keith Lard's report was interesting.
A west London nightclub could lose its licence after a gun battle erupted at the exact moment a health and safety officer was visiting to investigate crime and disorder claims.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
Of course republicanism has many persuasive arguments, it's a sound position to take. That's why it's so odd when some republicans focus on or overegg even trivial stuff and act like its the biggest deal evar, and make themselves look silly.
Republicanism is best argued when they pick their battles, targeting things like coronation costs is a better choice than often picked at least. As a monarchist I'm not going to argue there are no good arguments against my position, that would be just as silly.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
He is saying - I think - that the structure of the LLP means that these 4 law firms are reducing their tax bills by £4bn.
Which implies they are making profits of £29bn - I don’t believe that. (At 13.8%)
Their total revenues were £8.4in 2024 (Links 2.1; A&O 2.2; FBD £1.8; CC 2.3). I can believe that they paid out £4bn in partners profits. Which would mean that the lost tax is in the region of £500m.
Still very significant, but…
I said:
I agree that your numbers are more realistic but why on earth do we have a tax system that once again results in different levels of tax being raised depending on the vehicle for your business? We need a massive simplification and homogenisation of taxes so that you pay the same tax on the same income whether you earn it, receive it in dividends, receive it in pensions, operate through a company, an LLP or a partnership or some other model such as a trust etc etc. These multiple distortions may work well for accountants but they damage our economy and encourage non productive efforts to play the system.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
On topic, why would Farage want to lead the Tories? It is already a 50/50 toss up who will lead the forthcoming Tory-Reform administration. Reform could be running Wales soon. Kemi is going to have to be brilliant and make the most of all her opportunities not to see the Tories go the way of the Liberals.
I agree, I'd say there's a real risk the Tories become the UUP to Reform's DUP.
However, and it's a big however, the Tories can also fish for LD (home counties) and Labour (switchers and floating voters as well) so they can face and pull in multiple directions, if they get the mix and tone right.
Not sure Badenoch is quite the right candidate to go fishing for LD and centrist Labour votes. Davey is a more conservative leader and overall safer bet.
Davey is anything but conservative. He's a socialist in a yellow suit with a flying bird on it.
Not at all.
For example the LDs oppose the abolition of AR on farms and imposition of VAT on private schools.
Davey certainly wasn't a Socialist when in government either.
It will be tough to expand the number of LD seats at the next GE, as there will surely be some dead cat bounce for the Tories, but it isn't impossible. There is not a lot of love out there for either of the big two parties. We may well be in one of those decades where the tectonic plates of party politics shift.
I suggest you read the interviews with him on his background and political philosophy, which was so left-wing the interviewer even asked him why he didn't join the Labour Party then - to which he gave some weakish answer about how he didn't like its tradition.
He's a Lefty through and through.
Don't confuse political opportunism for where his real sympathies lie, and he'd be delighted to prop up a Labour administration that fell short next time.
One of the interesting curiosities of modern politics is that Conservatives don’t look or act conservative. It’s all topsy turvey
On the contrary they seem determined to trash the country rather than conserve it.
It's to do now, with party loyalty running vertically through classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
People are still used to the idea of upper middle class people being overwhelmingly Conservative, and working class people being mainly Labour (with a substantial Conservative minority).
When in reality, the Conservatives have very little in common now, with much of the Establishment, and Labour have very little in common now, with broad swathes of working class Britain.
And, the same is true of the US, France, and other rich world democracies. Quite often now, the most solidly left-leaning constituencies are the most well-heeled.
It's fascinating to consider why that's the case.
Luxury beliefs of the university educated, especially women. They have to distinguish themselves from the hoi poloi who have always had small-c conservative views. Used to be done by owning a Jaguar, etc.
Luxury beliefs come a lot cheaper than luxury living or even traditional middle class living in southern England.
I wonder how much resentment there is among many recent graduates that they're not going to get the lifestyle they expected, that their parents had or what many of their age group who didn't go to university now has.
There's a lot of resentment around. Saw a Mumsnet post from a 40-something who had worked their way up to an income of £75k, and feels their standard of living doesn't match up to their parents who had a similar inflation-adjusted salary.
We could argue about why that is (housing?) and what to do about it, but people aren't happy and the spectacular Tory defeat was not the cathartic experience the country was looking for.
No there's a lot of buyer's remorse among the £50-70k class to voted Labour for the first time in ages or stayed home. They now realise Labour are going to destroy their jobs and tax them into poverty.
It's been a very steep learning curve for those voters and I expect out of the 2m who stayed home or switched Labour we can get 90% of them back and grab 1.5m from reform on the right. That becomes an election winning coalition in 2029 against what I think will be a deeply unpopular Labour government.
A lot of the £50-£70k class underestimate to a significant degree exactly how far up the pile they are.
Live in London or South East and tell me it's far up the pile.
Most people get that Max but it isn’t particularly relevant when it’s your party that is protecting the interests of those with the housing wealth and those who start sentences with “well in my day I only earned £6k a year”.
In my day I only earned £450 per year but that is a longtime ago [1962] !!!!
That salary is worth about £8,000 in today's money - but house prices were only £40,000 on average, compared with about £260,000 now.
In housing cost terms, you were earning about £55,000 in '24 prices.
Our first home in Edinburgh [1964] was an apartment in Comely Bank for £2 000 and we bought a new build semi detached bungalow here on Llandudno in 1965 for £3,250 so not sure about your figures
Indeed our present 4 bed detached cost £16,000 in April 1975 though I was earning more than £450pa by then
FPT: I was wrong then. In housing cost terms, you were earning the equivalent of £75,000, based on the current value of one-bed flats in Comely Bank and the proportion of your salary you spent in '64. That's over twice the current median salary.
Am I the only one who gets frightened when (small c) conservatives abandon the institutions they once held dear? It makes me feel unsettled and I fear it makes them unhinged.
Or, put another way, one fiftieth of the annual budget for housing asylum seekers.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'. The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
Am I the only one who gets frightened when (small c) conservatives abandon the institutions they once held dear? It makes me feel unsettled and I fear it makes them unhinged.
Reform voters have rather high rates of Republicanism. It's not the lefties the monarchy needs to worry about.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
For all my grumbling I think our system works pretty well despite failure to address some key problems (for which changing the governing system would not address, since it is a political issue not a result of the system), and so further fudges and tweaks can achieve some good ends without ostensibly dramatic changes which I doubt would have as much effect on things like general equality or meritocratic advancement as compared to now.
It's silly in its ceremonial aspect, naturally, but I've yet to be persuaded its such a big deal that we need big changes in that area. Not many of our problems could not be addressed without tackling it.
I would expect remaining Caribbean monarchies to end fairly soon (some have been working on it for seemingly decades, it's surprising more have not done so already), and possibly only your UK/Canada/Australia ones in the medium term, but I presently expect the monarchy to last my lifetime here.
However, these things can be more brittle than expected - if people don't really care to change it can continue on without much enthusiasm (eg Canada), but equally support can erode quickly if the wrong monarch messed up in a big way.
This is my photo quota for the day. Politically on topic as the guy in the photograph is a Local Councillor in Lancashire. Martyn Hurt https://bsky.app/profile/martynhurt.bsky.social/post/3lbjj4ssz3s2j This is a barrier near me that the County Council seems to think is fine. I can't independently get through it, even with the power assist as I need to control speed and direction with my arms. I've just started researching how to take action to get it removed.
More explanations on the thread. He's trying to work across party on this.
This is a link to Google Maps which shows that - subject to details I may have missed - that anti-wheelchair barrier means that an able bodied person can walk 50m down the path, whilst a wheelchair user who can't get through has to go 3/4 of a mile around the roads. I have several in positions like that here, at least one of which goes back to pre-1970.
Apologies for two barrier photos in a few days, but the new Bluesky feed means I may be buried in these .
What is even the purpose of these barriers?
Some are so useless they seem more like some attempt at an art installation, or as part of some research project around how hard it is to remove even useless pieces of urban architecture once they are in place, given the convoluted processes to remove the buggering things.
At Manor Fields Park in Sheffield, from Manor Park Crescent, they literally *are* an art installation. And the tactile paving design on this one is remarkable.
Anti-wheelchair A-Barrier in a cocktail dress as part of an "art" project. Doesn't matter - it still blocks mobility scooters and power wheelchairs, as is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. And it needs to come out to leave just an entrance. https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1687198688949735424
Or, put another way, one fiftieth of the annual budget for housing asylum seekers.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'. The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
I'm inclined to agree with that. Constitutional monarchy is a good (least worst?) system whilst it lasts. But it will have a use by date at some point in the next XYZ years, and we will not know if that date is 25 or 250 years away until it arrives.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
For all my grumbling I think our system works pretty well despite failure to address some key problems (for which changing the governing system would not address, since it is a political issue not a result of the system), and so further fudges and tweaks can achieve some good ends without ostensibly dramatic changes which I doubt would have as much effect on things like general equality or meritocratic advancement as compared to now.
It's silly in its ceremonial aspect, naturally, but I've yet to be persuaded its such a big deal that we need big changes in that area. Not many of our problems could not be addressed without tackling it.
I would expect remaining Caribbean monarchies to end fairly soon (some have been working on it for seemingly decades, it's surprising more have not done so already), and possibly only your UK/Canada/Australia ones in the medium term, but I presently expect the monarchy to last my lifetime here.
However, these things can be more brittle than expected - if people don't really care to change it can continue on without much enthusiasm (eg Canada), but equally support can erode quickly if the wrong monarch messed up in a big way.
It would be interesting to compare the cost of the coronation once a generation to the cost of e.g. tge American presidential election, or even the French.
My guess, FWIW, is that at £72m we got something of a bargain and that UK plc will have made a profit on the venture with the additional tourism, media spend, publicity etc we will have engathered. There are lots of fairly solid reasons to oppose a monarchy, not least of which is the miserable lives that are inflicted on those in the Royal family, but I don't really think the cost of the Coronation is one of them.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
Sounds like you are a saddo already , those bloodsucking greedy parasites should be chased or made to do actual work , pay taxes and have all their ill gotten gains confiscated.
My guess, FWIW, is that at £72m we got something of a bargain and that UK plc will have made a profit on the venture with the additional tourism, media spend, publicity etc we will have engathered. There are lots of fairly solid reasons to oppose a monarchy, not least of which is the miserable lives that are inflicted on those in the Royal family, but I don't really think the cost of the Coronation is one of them.
A waste of time for morons to gawp at David, they should be in the dustbin of history. A bigger bunch of grifters has never been seen.
My guess, FWIW, is that at £72m we got something of a bargain and that UK plc will have made a profit on the venture with the additional tourism, media spend, publicity etc we will have engathered. There are lots of fairly solid reasons to oppose a monarchy, not least of which is the miserable lives that are inflicted on those in the Royal family, but I don't really think the cost of the Coronation is one of them.
A waste of time for morons to gawp at David, they should be in the dustbin of history. A bigger bunch of grifters has never been seen.
Or, put another way, one fiftieth of the annual budget for housing asylum seekers.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'. The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
I'm inclined to agree with that. Constitutional monarchy is a good (least worst?) system whilst it lasts. But it will have a use by date at some point in the next XYZ years, and we will not know if that date is 25 or 250 years away until it arrives.
I read somewhere that the political party which had the greatest proportion of its supporters as republicans is.... Reform UK. Not surprising, when you think about it.
And this is the point, surely. Those that want to pull down traditional "conservative" parts of the country such as the monarchy in the belief that this will lead the way to a happy egalitarian "liberal" future are going to be proven very disappointed indeed.
The beneficiaries will be the illiberal hard right. They are the ones who benefit from disorientating change and the insecurity that comes with it.
My guess, FWIW, is that at £72m we got something of a bargain and that UK plc will have made a profit on the venture with the additional tourism, media spend, publicity etc we will have engathered. There are lots of fairly solid reasons to oppose a monarchy, not least of which is the miserable lives that are inflicted on those in the Royal family, but I don't really think the cost of the Coronation is one of them.
A waste of time for morons to gawp at David, they should be in the dustbin of history. A bigger bunch of grifters has never been seen.
We could replace them with Captain Tom's family.
Minimum appearance fee of £100k per event....no exceptions or discounts for charity.
The "cost" of the coronation is meaningless without (a) comparing it to the economic and softpower boost it gives to UK Plc and (b) comparing it to the cost of a presidential investment, which will be far from zero, with very little boost to the economics or softpower of UK Plc.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
No harm to King Chuck (not much love either) but I would expect the ‘generation’ between him and his successor to be much shorter than say the one between 2014 and now, let alone between 2014 and any future referendum. The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
My guess, FWIW, is that at £72m we got something of a bargain and that UK plc will have made a profit on the venture with the additional tourism, media spend, publicity etc we will have engathered. There are lots of fairly solid reasons to oppose a monarchy, not least of which is the miserable lives that are inflicted on those in the Royal family, but I don't really think the cost of the Coronation is one of them.
The politicians would outspend them before the first lunch.
Blair Force One was supposed to be a Concord at one point.
The hacks were very upset when the “seats in a refuelling tanker” thing was unveiled under the Coalition. They’d come to write brutal pieces about luxury for politicians, while luxuriating themselves. Then they got to sit in standard seats and not even get a glass of bubbly.
On topic, why would Farage want to lead the Tories? It is already a 50/50 toss up who will lead the forthcoming Tory-Reform administration. Reform could be running Wales soon. Kemi is going to have to be brilliant and make the most of all her opportunities not to see the Tories go the way of the Liberals.
I agree, I'd say there's a real risk the Tories become the UUP to Reform's DUP.
However, and it's a big however, the Tories can also fish for LD (home counties) and Labour (switchers and floating voters as well) so they can face and pull in multiple directions, if they get the mix and tone right.
Not sure Badenoch is quite the right candidate to go fishing for LD and centrist Labour votes. Davey is a more conservative leader and overall safer bet.
Davey is anything but conservative. He's a socialist in a yellow suit with a flying bird on it.
Not at all.
For example the LDs oppose the abolition of AR on farms and imposition of VAT on private schools.
Davey certainly wasn't a Socialist when in government either.
It will be tough to expand the number of LD seats at the next GE, as there will surely be some dead cat bounce for the Tories, but it isn't impossible. There is not a lot of love out there for either of the big two parties. We may well be in one of those decades where the tectonic plates of party politics shift.
I suggest you read the interviews with him on his background and political philosophy, which was so left-wing the interviewer even asked him why he didn't join the Labour Party then - to which he gave some weakish answer about how he didn't like its tradition.
He's a Lefty through and through.
Don't confuse political opportunism for where his real sympathies lie, and he'd be delighted to prop up a Labour administration that fell short next time.
One of the interesting curiosities of modern politics is that Conservatives don’t look or act conservative. It’s all topsy turvey
On the contrary they seem determined to trash the country rather than conserve it.
It's to do now, with party loyalty running vertically through classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
People are still used to the idea of upper middle class people being overwhelmingly Conservative, and working class people being mainly Labour (with a substantial Conservative minority).
When in reality, the Conservatives have very little in common now, with much of the Establishment, and Labour have very little in common now, with broad swathes of working class Britain.
And, the same is true of the US, France, and other rich world democracies. Quite often now, the most solidly left-leaning constituencies are the most well-heeled.
It's fascinating to consider why that's the case.
Luxury beliefs of the university educated, especially women. They have to distinguish themselves from the hoi poloi who have always had small-c conservative views. Used to be done by owning a Jaguar, etc.
Luxury beliefs come a lot cheaper than luxury living or even traditional middle class living in southern England.
I wonder how much resentment there is among many recent graduates that they're not going to get the lifestyle they expected, that their parents had or what many of their age group who didn't go to university now has.
There's a lot of resentment around. Saw a Mumsnet post from a 40-something who had worked their way up to an income of £75k, and feels their standard of living doesn't match up to their parents who had a similar inflation-adjusted salary.
We could argue about why that is (housing?) and what to do about it, but people aren't happy and the spectacular Tory defeat was not the cathartic experience the country was looking for.
No there's a lot of buyer's remorse among the £50-70k class to voted Labour for the first time in ages or stayed home. They now realise Labour are going to destroy their jobs and tax them into poverty.
It's been a very steep learning curve for those voters and I expect out of the 2m who stayed home or switched Labour we can get 90% of them back and grab 1.5m from reform on the right. That becomes an election winning coalition in 2029 against what I think will be a deeply unpopular Labour government.
A lot of the £50-£70k class underestimate to a significant degree exactly how far up the pile they are.
Live in London or South East and tell me it's far up the pile.
Most people get that Max but it isn’t particularly relevant when it’s your party that is protecting the interests of those with the housing wealth and those who start sentences with “well in my day I only earned £6k a year”.
In my day I only earned £450 per year but that is a longtime ago [1962] !!!!
That salary is worth about £8,000 in today's money - but house prices were only £40,000 on average, compared with about £260,000 now.
In housing cost terms, you were earning about £55,000 in '24 prices.
Our first home in Edinburgh [1964] was an apartment in Comely Bank for £2 000 and we bought a new build semi detached bungalow here on Llandudno in 1965 for £3,250 so not sure about your figures
Indeed our present 4 bed detached cost £16,000 in April 1975 though I was earning more than £450pa by then
FPT: I was wrong then. In housing cost terms, you were earning the equivalent of £75,000, based on the current value of one-bed flats in Comely Bank and the proportion of your salary you spent in '64. That's over twice the current median salary.
a one bed flat in comely bank is more than 300K? Mental
Or, put another way, one fiftieth of the annual budget for housing asylum seekers.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'. The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
I don't see any reason why monarchy or magic can't continue.
People crave and look for that, and we all like our myths, legends and history, whilst despising politicians.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
For all my grumbling I think our system works pretty well despite failure to address some key problems (for which changing the governing system would not address, since it is a political issue not a result of the system), and so further fudges and tweaks can achieve some good ends without ostensibly dramatic changes which I doubt would have as much effect on things like general equality or meritocratic advancement as compared to now.
It's silly in its ceremonial aspect, naturally, but I've yet to be persuaded its such a big deal that we need big changes in that area. Not many of our problems could not be addressed without tackling it.
I would expect remaining Caribbean monarchies to end fairly soon (some have been working on it for seemingly decades, it's surprising more have not done so already), and possibly only your UK/Canada/Australia ones in the medium term, but I presently expect the monarchy to last my lifetime here.
However, these things can be more brittle than expected - if people don't really care to change it can continue on without much enthusiasm (eg Canada), but equally support can erode quickly if the wrong monarch messed up in a big way.
I keep thinking the monarchy must be doomed in places like Australia, and then I see positive polling that surprises me.
Some more perspective on those supposedly 'huge' costs.
When my father was in hospital, I spent at least 3 hours, one afternoon, trying to his blood work results released. Complete with my father sitting there and demanding that they be handed over.
Am I the only one who gets frightened when (small c) conservatives abandon the institutions they once held dear? It makes me feel unsettled and I fear it makes them unhinged.
I defend the monarchy, the Lords, the CofE and even the courts. Despite the fact I can get frustrated at all of them, at times.
Or, put another way, one fiftieth of the annual budget for housing asylum seekers.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'. The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
I'm inclined to agree with that. Constitutional monarchy is a good (least worst?) system whilst it lasts. But it will have a use by date at some point in the next XYZ years, and we will not know if that date is 25 or 250 years away until it arrives.
I read somewhere that the political party which had the greatest proportion of its supporters as republicans is.... Reform UK. Not surprising, when you think about it.
And this is the point, surely. Those that want to pull down traditional "conservative" parts of the country such as the monarchy in the belief that this will lead the way to a happy egalitarian "liberal" future are going to be proven very disappointed indeed.
The beneficiaries will be the illiberal hard right. They are the ones who benefit from disorientating change and the insecurity that comes with it.
Indeed.
As we've often mentioned, the late Queen was essentially a social democrat who Thatcher famously disliked for m beinh this, abd Charles and William are much the same, in this.
Or, put another way, one fiftieth of the annual budget for housing asylum seekers.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'. The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
I don't see any reason why monarchy or magic can't continue.
People crave and look for that, and we all like our myths, legends and history, whilst despising politicians.
I'm not worried.
If we get rid of the monarchy, we'll replace it with something worse.
See also: House of Lords.
That's why I see myself as a small-c conservative: I'm not against change, but change for change's sake often ends in a far worse situation. Try to make good changes, mostly in incremental evolutions (rarely revolutions). Think the changes, and their effects, through. You won't always get it right, but you'll do better than many of the changes both governing parties have given us over the last three decades.
But don't remain static, either. Preserve what 'works', alter what doesn't.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
No harm to King Chuck (not much love either) but I would expect the ‘generation’ between him and his successor to be much shorter than say the one between 2014 and now, let alone between 2014 and any future referendum. The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
Hopefully KWV will have the sense to go all out. In the long run, headlines about relatively tiny amounts of public money being spent on coronations are meaningless and only 'convince' those who are already republicans. The appeal of the monarchy is in doing splendour and ceremony better than anyone else in the world.
On topic, why would Farage want to lead the Tories? It is already a 50/50 toss up who will lead the forthcoming Tory-Reform administration. Reform could be running Wales soon. Kemi is going to have to be brilliant and make the most of all her opportunities not to see the Tories go the way of the Liberals.
I agree, I'd say there's a real risk the Tories become the UUP to Reform's DUP.
However, and it's a big however, the Tories can also fish for LD (home counties) and Labour (switchers and floating voters as well) so they can face and pull in multiple directions, if they get the mix and tone right.
Not sure Badenoch is quite the right candidate to go fishing for LD and centrist Labour votes. Davey is a more conservative leader and overall safer bet.
Davey is anything but conservative. He's a socialist in a yellow suit with a flying bird on it.
Not at all.
For example the LDs oppose the abolition of AR on farms and imposition of VAT on private schools.
Davey certainly wasn't a Socialist when in government either.
It will be tough to expand the number of LD seats at the next GE, as there will surely be some dead cat bounce for the Tories, but it isn't impossible. There is not a lot of love out there for either of the big two parties. We may well be in one of those decades where the tectonic plates of party politics shift.
I suggest you read the interviews with him on his background and political philosophy, which was so left-wing the interviewer even asked him why he didn't join the Labour Party then - to which he gave some weakish answer about how he didn't like its tradition.
He's a Lefty through and through.
Don't confuse political opportunism for where his real sympathies lie, and he'd be delighted to prop up a Labour administration that fell short next time.
One of the interesting curiosities of modern politics is that Conservatives don’t look or act conservative. It’s all topsy turvey
On the contrary they seem determined to trash the country rather than conserve it.
It's to do now, with party loyalty running vertically through classes, rather than horizontally, across them.
People are still used to the idea of upper middle class people being overwhelmingly Conservative, and working class people being mainly Labour (with a substantial Conservative minority).
When in reality, the Conservatives have very little in common now, with much of the Establishment, and Labour have very little in common now, with broad swathes of working class Britain.
And, the same is true of the US, France, and other rich world democracies. Quite often now, the most solidly left-leaning constituencies are the most well-heeled.
It's fascinating to consider why that's the case.
Luxury beliefs of the university educated, especially women. They have to distinguish themselves from the hoi poloi who have always had small-c conservative views. Used to be done by owning a Jaguar, etc.
Luxury beliefs come a lot cheaper than luxury living or even traditional middle class living in southern England.
I wonder how much resentment there is among many recent graduates that they're not going to get the lifestyle they expected, that their parents had or what many of their age group who didn't go to university now has.
There's a lot of resentment around. Saw a Mumsnet post from a 40-something who had worked their way up to an income of £75k, and feels their standard of living doesn't match up to their parents who had a similar inflation-adjusted salary.
We could argue about why that is (housing?) and what to do about it, but people aren't happy and the spectacular Tory defeat was not the cathartic experience the country was looking for.
No there's a lot of buyer's remorse among the £50-70k class to voted Labour for the first time in ages or stayed home. They now realise Labour are going to destroy their jobs and tax them into poverty.
It's been a very steep learning curve for those voters and I expect out of the 2m who stayed home or switched Labour we can get 90% of them back and grab 1.5m from reform on the right. That becomes an election winning coalition in 2029 against what I think will be a deeply unpopular Labour government.
A lot of the £50-£70k class underestimate to a significant degree exactly how far up the pile they are.
Live in London or South East and tell me it's far up the pile.
Most people get that Max but it isn’t particularly relevant when it’s your party that is protecting the interests of those with the housing wealth and those who start sentences with “well in my day I only earned £6k a year”.
In my day I only earned £450 per year but that is a longtime ago [1962] !!!!
That salary is worth about £8,000 in today's money - but house prices were only £40,000 on average, compared with about £260,000 now.
In housing cost terms, you were earning about £55,000 in '24 prices.
Our first home in Edinburgh [1964] was an apartment in Comely Bank for £2 000 and we bought a new build semi detached bungalow here on Llandudno in 1965 for £3,250 so not sure about your figures
Indeed our present 4 bed detached cost £16,000 in April 1975 though I was earning more than £450pa by then
FPT: I was wrong then. In housing cost terms, you were earning the equivalent of £75,000, based on the current value of one-bed flats in Comely Bank and the proportion of your salary you spent in '64. That's over twice the current median salary.
a one bed flat in comely bank is more than 300K? Mental
Stockbridge so getting up there. Lived there for a year or so when a toddler, even remember being taken to the original Madam Doubtfire’s.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
Unfortunate timing...I imagine Keith Lard's report was interesting.
A west London nightclub could lose its licence after a gun battle erupted at the exact moment a health and safety officer was visiting to investigate crime and disorder claims.
Some more perspective on those supposedly 'huge' costs.
When my father was in hospital, I spent at least 3 hours, one afternoon, trying to his blood work results released. Complete with my father sitting there and demanding that they be handed over.
On Thursday my GP told me to go into A&E for an emergency op. I went in, a cannular was fitted, bloods taken, and I was prepped for the op. I then saw the doc, who told me I didn't need an op and the problem would probably sort itself out. If it didn't, he would operate in a couple of weeks. In the meantime I am losing a concerning amount of blood (though I've improved today...)
I'm unsure if that was the NHS working well or badly. Certainly, seeing the surgeon before prepping me might have been good. Though maybe the blood results fed into the decision.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
We'd be better off if they'd abolished the monarchy instead of creating the NHS. Discuss.
Irish Republicans booing Prince William is like bears shitting in the woods. It’s in their nature.
As for the Coronation, the cost is trivial in the scheme of things.
The main potential weakness of the monarchy is the humans in it, not the constitutional principles which are only of real interest to a small educated elite.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
No harm to King Chuck (not much love either) but I would expect the ‘generation’ between him and his successor to be much shorter than say the one between 2014 and now, let alone between 2014 and any future referendum. The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
Hopefully KWV will have the sense to go all out. In the long run, headlines about relatively tiny amounts of public money being spent on coronations are meaningless and only 'convince' those who are already republicans. The appeal of the monarchy is in doing splendour and ceremony better than anyone else in the world.
I’d hate for him to be distracted from his life’s work, peace in the Middle East. Oh, and his other life’s work, ending homelessness. Not to mention solving the climate crisis.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
For all my grumbling I think our system works pretty well despite failure to address some key problems (for which changing the governing system would not address, since it is a political issue not a result of the system), and so further fudges and tweaks can achieve some good ends without ostensibly dramatic changes which I doubt would have as much effect on things like general equality or meritocratic advancement as compared to now.
It's silly in its ceremonial aspect, naturally, but I've yet to be persuaded its such a big deal that we need big changes in that area. Not many of our problems could not be addressed without tackling it.
I would expect remaining Caribbean monarchies to end fairly soon (some have been working on it for seemingly decades, it's surprising more have not done so already), and possibly only your UK/Canada/Australia ones in the medium term, but I presently expect the monarchy to last my lifetime here.
However, these things can be more brittle than expected - if people don't really care to change it can continue on without much enthusiasm (eg Canada), but equally support can erode quickly if the wrong monarch messed up in a big way.
I keep thinking the monarchy must be doomed in places like Australia, and then I see positive polling that surprises me.
The faster the world changes = the scarier it gets, which means people cling evermore to the old, trusted and reliable, the comforting and the consoling
The British monarchy is old, trusted, comforting, and consoling. The world is a fucking freakshow, but the King of England is in his castle, as he has been since 800AD and Alfred the Great
Honestly, with the universe in terrifying flux, who is going to vote for fairly pointless and dramatic change, which will be an enormous emotional wrench (even for Republicans)?
It is never going to happen, bar, as I say, a huge war or some similar apocalypse
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
No harm to King Chuck (not much love either) but I would expect the ‘generation’ between him and his successor to be much shorter than say the one between 2014 and now, let alone between 2014 and any future referendum. The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
I used to say that we could have a serious discussion about the Monarchy when the Queen died. Whilst she was alive her dedication and sense of duty demanded respect from all but the most curmudgeonly (yes, @malcolmg , I mean you).
But now that has happened I really cannot be bothered. We have so many real problems to address as a nation and it would frankly be too self indulgent for words to waste time and energy replacing the Royal family when those problems are not being addressed. We can stick to pointless, irrelevant gestures such as getting rid of the hereditaries in the House of Lords and stagger on.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
Some more perspective on those supposedly 'huge' costs.
When my father was in hospital, I spent at least 3 hours, one afternoon, trying to his blood work results released. Complete with my father sitting there and demanding that they be handed over.
When my Dad was in hospital, my Mum couldn’t get his blood work released.
So she called me up.
I turned up in a suit and asked a convenient nurse to show me the diagnostics. So she flipped the screen around. Apparently she thought I was a doctor…
Did it ever really get light? We have gone from a black grey sky to a grey black sky and back to a black grey one today. Dismal doesn't really cover it.
I for one would be very sad and quite concerned if we got rid of the monarchy. The Westminster System depends on it and it provides a logical basis for law. You can't take the keystone out of the arch.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
For all my grumbling I think our system works pretty well despite failure to address some key problems (for which changing the governing system would not address, since it is a political issue not a result of the system), and so further fudges and tweaks can achieve some good ends without ostensibly dramatic changes which I doubt would have as much effect on things like general equality or meritocratic advancement as compared to now.
It's silly in its ceremonial aspect, naturally, but I've yet to be persuaded its such a big deal that we need big changes in that area. Not many of our problems could not be addressed without tackling it.
I would expect remaining Caribbean monarchies to end fairly soon (some have been working on it for seemingly decades, it's surprising more have not done so already), and possibly only your UK/Canada/Australia ones in the medium term, but I presently expect the monarchy to last my lifetime here.
However, these things can be more brittle than expected - if people don't really care to change it can continue on without much enthusiasm (eg Canada), but equally support can erode quickly if the wrong monarch messed up in a big way.
Mmm. This is one of the areas where I have become more conservative over the years (I argued for abolition of the monarchy as one of my bits of GCSE English coursework...) -- like the House of Lords, the monarchy is not a system that I am strongly invested in defending, but it has the benefits that it's already here and basically functional. We have so many real serious problems we need to address, and it's far from clear that we'd get an improvement by imposing a change from the current setup.
Whatever you think about Brexit, one thing it did make clear is that system changes can eat up a surprising amount of government attention and time, and basically blow your chances of doing anything else at the same time. So if you're going to make them you'd better be convinced that the change is necessary and the gains will be worth the candle. On the monarchy and HoL reform I am not convinced.
This is a stupid argument. If you think the monarchy is useful then £72mn (a little over £1 per UK resident) really isn't a lot of money to spend on the coronation, an event that we should expect to occur once in a generation.
No harm to King Chuck (not much love either) but I would expect the ‘generation’ between him and his successor to be much shorter than say the one between 2014 and now, let alone between 2014 and any future referendum. The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
Yeah but 70 years since the last one. It evens out over time. There are valid reasons to be a republican (although I am not one) but the cost just isn't one of them.
Did it ever really get light? We have gone from a black grey sky to a grey black sky and back to a black grey one today. Dismal doesn't really cover it.
We need to reinvent hibernation. It's a superb idea
We all go to sleep around November 15 and wake up March 15. We burn up all the fat so we are thin and athletic when we re-emerge. We also prolong our lives by 50 years. And skip winter every year. What's not to love? We can move Christmas to Easter
The Daily Mirror is to merge its staff with those on the celebrity title OK! magazine in the latest move by the UK’s largest commercial news publisher to further cut costs.
The plan to combine staff across the newspaper, magazines and supplements, which are owned by Reach, was announced on Friday in an internal email to staff from the Mirror’s editor-in-chief, Caroline Waterston.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
I suspect Clem Attlee (later 1st Earl Attlee) was just as much a monarchist as subsequent Labour PMs. Wouldna happen.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
We'd be better off if they'd abolished the monarchy instead of creating the NHS. Discuss.
Yes I am able to discuss it... but only because I am alive, which without the NHS I undoubtedly would not be.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I know you don't ordinarily pay for your trips around the world, but maybe use some of your money to have a holiday to Barbados and get some sunshine?
I'm only whining. Ignore me. I like to whine
Also, this is the price I pay for my generally quite fortunate life of travel. When I am NOT travelling I REALLY notice how shit our climate is (which it is, relatively) - much more than I used to
I shall try to restrain my lamentations to my daily jeremiad against the darkness
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
We'd be better off if they'd abolished the monarchy instead of creating the NHS. Discuss.
Yes I am able to discuss it... but only because I am alive, which without the NHS I undoubtedly would not be.
Why on earth not?
No other country has the NHS, and few have anything much like it. Other countries do have healthcare systems though, many considerably better than ours. If we hadn't created the NHS we might have something more like the French or German systems. And my guess is you'd probably still be around.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
We'd be better off if they'd abolished the monarchy instead of creating the NHS. Discuss.
Yes I am able to discuss it... but only because I am alive, which without the NHS I undoubtedly would not be.
There would still be healthcare, just organised differently
Since the topic of monarchy has turned up it was interesting listening to a radio 4 programme the other evening comparing the 1931 China floods that killed 2 million with the recent Spanish floods.
One of the guests was a Spanish journalist who spoke about the Royal visit a few days after the floods and the reaction of the crowds throwing mud. She said the impression given in the UK media was of it being a serious problem for the Spanish Royals when in fact it was the exact opposite. The anger was directed against the Spanish Socialist PM and the Valencia Region Right Wing President who had been throwing blame at each other since the floods.
Apparently both the PM and President fled but the Royals stayed and spoke to the crowd even though they were covered in mud. This went down extremely well with the crowd and has gone down extremely well in Spain as well and the Royal's standing has much improved. The only UK paper that has really covered this properly is the Times.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
I suspect Clem Attlee (later 1st Earl Attlee) was just as much a monarchist as subsequent Labour PMs. Wouldna happen.
What, the man who came up with this?
There were few who thought him a starter, Many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM, an Earl and a Knight of the Garter.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
I suspect Clem Attlee (later 1st Earl Attlee) was just as much a monarchist as subsequent Labour PMs. Wouldna happen.
What, the man who came up with this?
There were few who thought him a starter, Many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM, an Earl and a Knight of the Garter.
Surely not!
He was married to a Tory, he just f**ked off and joined them late in life if he was ever a proper Socialist anyway.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
We'd be better off if they'd abolished the monarchy instead of creating the NHS. Discuss.
Yes I am able to discuss it... but only because I am alive, which without the NHS I undoubtedly would not be.
Why on earth not?
No other country has the NHS, and few have anything much like it. Other countries do have healthcare systems though, many considerably better than ours. If we hadn't created the NHS we might have something more like the French or German systems. And my guess is you'd probably still be around.
Indeed. Most of the Health Services of Europe are better than ours - unless your measure is control of paper clip distribution.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
I suspect Clem Attlee (later 1st Earl Attlee) was just as much a monarchist as subsequent Labour PMs. Wouldna happen.
Harold Wilson, Liz's favourite PM, who she kept inviting back for lunch.
Only about eight years later, ofcourse, there was the other famous case of the Queen's Christmas message that Thatcher's No.10 was supposed to have vetoed, because of "moving away from the language of division in our society" was supposed to have been a clear dig at Thatcher, around the time of the miners' strike.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
Give over. It's a bit rainy. Yesterday was nice. Tomorrow's looking nice. Next week's looking nice. I'm having a lovely November. And today is the perfect day to bake the Christmas Cake. Which will start in 20 minutes.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
I strongly suspect that Charles's coronation was the cheapest, relative to national income, in the history of the monarchy. Happy to be proved wrong. But a quick comparison with his mother's coronation is supportive of my claim: Charles's cost 0.003% of GDP while Elizabeth's cost 0.01% of GDP. God bless the King!
Question that feels like it ought to have an answer, but I don't know where to look...
Has anywhere tried to just not have a Head of State, not even a boring token elected one?
Presumably, something in the setup of a nation breaks, but what?
The Swiss rotate the Head of State around the 7 (?) Bundesraete (Ministers) in the Government, so you have a different Head of State each year - most people can't remember who the current one is, but there's always someone available for state ceremonies. It's a nice system IMO.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
I strongly suspect that Charles's coronation was the cheapest, relative to national income, in the history of the monarchy. Happy to be proved wrong. But a quick comparison with his mother's coronation is supportive of my claim: Charles's cost 0.003% of GDP while Elizabeth's cost 0.01% of GDP. God bless the King!
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I know you don't ordinarily pay for your trips around the world, but maybe use some of your money to have a holiday to Barbados and get some sunshine?
Somewhere like Southern Portugal is very nice this time of year and less than 3hr flight if you need to get back to UK.
The eastern Algarve probably has the nicest climate in Europe. Discuss...
Doesn't get as hideously hot as the Med coast (esp these days), avoids the high winds of the western Algarve
Yeah but the beaches are crab infested mud banks. Much nicer out to the west nearer Albuferia.
Sounds like you have been to the wrong places. There are plenty of very sandy beaches in the East near the border with Spain (although I still prefer west of Faro).
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
Plus Germany have said they wouldn’t execute the ICC arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
Relatedly, this is Douglas Carswell's recipe for saving the UK (he was the Tory MP who shifted to UKIP)
To rescue Britain, the public need to demand: 1. Border controls. Remove illegal arrivals immediately, appeals heard overseas. 2. Large-scale deportation of those who entered illegally. No foreign courts holding jurisdiction. 3. Concerted assimilation, with a policy to deport radical imams and extreme Islamists. 4. End BBC licence fee. They lie. 5. Repeal Equality Act, Human Rights Act and close “supreme” court. None of these innovations have protected our natural liberties. 6. Give parents a legal right to control their share to local education budget. Parent power is the only way to counter woke indoctrination. 7. Abolish all renewable energy targets and restrictions on hydrocarbons. 8. Terminate QE and unwind monetary manipulation that has destroyed productivity. 9. 10 percent across the board cut in public spending to save the country from looming bankruptcy. Pain now so our children might not be poorer than us. 10. Department of Prime Minister to end the clown show of incompetence in Westminster
This is my photo quota for the day. Politically on topic as the guy in the photograph is a Local Councillor in Lancashire. Martyn Hurt https://bsky.app/profile/martynhurt.bsky.social/post/3lbjj4ssz3s2j This is a barrier near me that the County Council seems to think is fine. I can't independently get through it, even with the power assist as I need to control speed and direction with my arms. I've just started researching how to take action to get it removed.
More explanations on the thread. He's trying to work across party on this.
This is a link to Google Maps which shows that - subject to details I may have missed - that anti-wheelchair barrier means that an able bodied person can walk 50m down the path, whilst a wheelchair user who can't get through has to go 3/4 of a mile around the roads. I have several in positions like that here, at least one of which goes back to pre-1970.
Apologies for two barrier photos in a few days, but the new Bluesky feed means I may be buried in these .
What is even the purpose of these barriers?
Some are so useless they seem more like some attempt at an art installation, or as part of some research project around how hard it is to remove even useless pieces of urban architecture once they are in place, given the convoluted processes to remove the buggering things.
At Manor Fields Park in Sheffield, from Manor Park Crescent, they literally *are* an art installation. And the tactile paving design on this one is remarkable.
Anti-wheelchair A-Barrier in a cocktail dress as part of an "art" project. Doesn't matter - it still blocks mobility scooters and power wheelchairs, as is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. And it needs to come out to leave just an entrance. https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1687198688949735424
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy was the 1936 abdication crisis.
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
Atlee most certainly would not have abolished the monarchy. You might find this piece on the Labour Party and the monarchy instructive:
"The British Labour Party has never been a republican party, even if it has had republicans in it. Ninety-nine years ago, the Labour conference considered a motion “that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished”. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated. George Lansbury, who vies with Jeremy Corbyn for the title of Labour’s most left-wing leader, told conference delegates that it was the capitalist system that made people poor, not the King."
On Atlee, specifically:
"In 1959, Attlee wrote an essay on “The Role of the Monarchy” for The Observer. Labour’s greatest prime minister explained that whilst he had been responsible for many radical changes in British society, “there is one feature of which I have never felt any urge to abolish, and that is the monarchy”. For Attlee, the great advantage of the constitutional monarch is that he or she stands as “the general representative of the people”. Attlee wrote that Britain was lucky “in having as head of state a person who is not the choice of one section of the people but is the common possession, so to speak, of them all”."
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I know you don't ordinarily pay for your trips around the world, but maybe use some of your money to have a holiday to Barbados and get some sunshine?
Somewhere like Southern Portugal is very nice this time of year and less than 3hr flight if you need to get back to UK.
The eastern Algarve probably has the nicest climate in Europe. Discuss...
Doesn't get as hideously hot as the Med coast (esp these days), avoids the high winds of the western Algarve
Yeah but the beaches are crab infested mud banks. Much nicer out to the west nearer Albuferia.
Sounds like you have been to the wrong places. There are plenty of very sandy beaches in the East near the border with Spain (although I still prefer west of Faro).
Yes, quite. The beaches near somewhere like Tavira are arguably amongst the finest in Europe. The only caveat is that they can be so wide and long they lack shade. But you can find cute smaller shadier beaches with a short drive
The Harvard-educated lawyer David Lammy might be a decent longshot for next Labour leader imo, but wait till there is a vacancy since plenty of new stars can shine in the next four years before Starmer goes.
Since the topic of monarchy has turned up it was interesting listening to a radio 4 programme the other evening comparing the 1931 China floods that killed 2 million with the recent Spanish floods.
One of the guests was a Spanish journalist who spoke about the Royal visit a few days after the floods and the reaction of the crowds throwing mud. She said the impression given in the UK media was of it being a serious problem for the Spanish Royals when in fact it was the exact opposite. The anger was directed against the Spanish Socialist PM and the Valencia Region Right Wing President who had been throwing blame at each other since the floods.
Apparently both the PM and President fled but the Royals stayed and spoke to the crowd even though they were covered in mud. This went down extremely well with the crowd and has gone down extremely well in Spain as well and the Royal's standing has much improved. The only UK paper that has really covered this properly is the Times.
Yep, I heard that programme, and I believe I pointed out at the time that Felipe at least had the balls to face up to his subjects. That kinda demonstrates the lottery of monarchies, Felipe seems a decent sort unlike his shit of a father whose only moment of selfless glory was standing up to the coup attempt.
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I know you don't ordinarily pay for your trips around the world, but maybe use some of your money to have a holiday to Barbados and get some sunshine?
Somewhere like Southern Portugal is very nice this time of year and less than 3hr flight if you need to get back to UK.
The eastern Algarve probably has the nicest climate in Europe. Discuss...
Doesn't get as hideously hot as the Med coast (esp these days), avoids the high winds of the western Algarve
Yeah but the beaches are crab infested mud banks. Much nicer out to the west nearer Albuferia.
Sounds like you have been to the wrong places. There are plenty of very sandy beaches in the East near the border with Spain (although I still prefer west of Faro).
Yes, quite. The beaches near somewhere like Tavira are arguably amongst the finest in Europe. The only caveat is that they can be so wide and long they lack shade. But you can find cute smaller shadier beaches with a short drive
A strange argument
IMO the best Portuguese beaches are still the ones on the Atlantic. Like Cornwall but bigger and more impressive and of course in certain areas the massive rollers. Also, you can get away from the tourists. Just not at this time of year.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
To be honest I am not that bothered if the COP talks end without an agreement. They have turned into a hussle where so called rich countries (some of which like us and the US are in fact deeply in debt) are pressured into giving money to poorer countries rather than, you know, addressing the global climate. Like all these things (see, for example the G20) they have become a process without a clear sense of purpose.
I am deeply apprehensive about a Trump Presidency but the prospect of an end of these circuses is something to welcome.
The earliest sunset, where I am, to the nearest minute, is 4 pm. We’ll have that in just two weeks’ time, after which there is basically ten days when nothing changes, then we resume the march towards springtime.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
To be honest I am not that bothered if the COP talks end without an agreement. They have turned into a hussle where so called rich countries (some of which like us and the US are in fact deeply in debt) are pressured into giving money to poorer countries rather than, you know, addressing the global climate. Like all these things (see, for example the G20) they have become a process without a clear sense of purpose.
I am deeply apprehensive about a Trump Presidency but the prospect of an end of these circuses is something to welcome.
Are we sure Ed Miliband hasn't signed us up to make payments regardless?
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I know you don't ordinarily pay for your trips around the world, but maybe use some of your money to have a holiday to Barbados and get some sunshine?
Somewhere like Southern Portugal is very nice this time of year and less than 3hr flight if you need to get back to UK.
The eastern Algarve probably has the nicest climate in Europe. Discuss...
Doesn't get as hideously hot as the Med coast (esp these days), avoids the high winds of the western Algarve
Yeah but the beaches are crab infested mud banks. Much nicer out to the west nearer Albuferia.
Sounds like you have been to the wrong places. There are plenty of very sandy beaches in the East near the border with Spain (although I still prefer west of Faro).
Yes, quite. The beaches near somewhere like Tavira are arguably amongst the finest in Europe. The only caveat is that they can be so wide and long they lack shade. But you can find cute smaller shadier beaches with a short drive
A strange argument
IMO the best Portuguese beaches are still the ones on the Atlantic. Like Cornwall but bigger and more impressive and of course in certain areas the massive rollers. Also, you can get away from the tourists. Just not at this time of year.
You mean the beaches on the Costa Vicentina?
Yes, they are incredible. Wild and beautiful and huge and clean. Great surfing (apparently - I don't surf)
If there is any criticism it is the wind, it can be brutal and it somehow makes the hot sun hotter
But nonetheless magnificent
Shame about Portuguese food. It's OK if you stick to grilled sardines and custard tarts. Nice wine
I find myself wanting to take a theatre rig to make it go dark outside @Leon 's flat at 2pm tomorrow, just for the purposes of finding out what will happen .
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
I know you don't ordinarily pay for your trips around the world, but maybe use some of your money to have a holiday to Barbados and get some sunshine?
Somewhere like Southern Portugal is very nice this time of year and less than 3hr flight if you need to get back to UK.
The eastern Algarve probably has the nicest climate in Europe. Discuss...
Doesn't get as hideously hot as the Med coast (esp these days), avoids the high winds of the western Algarve
Yeah but the beaches are crab infested mud banks. Much nicer out to the west nearer Albuferia.
Sounds like you have been to the wrong places. There are plenty of very sandy beaches in the East near the border with Spain (although I still prefer west of Faro).
We've been east of Faro twice and it was like that both times. Maybe we were just unlucky. The beaches around Alvor to the west are some of the best I have seen anywhere.
Comments
A west London nightclub could lose its licence after a gun battle erupted at the exact moment a health and safety officer was visiting to investigate crime and disorder claims.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgqyj5yeqpjo
Republicanism is best argued when they pick their battles, targeting things like coronation costs is a better choice than often picked at least. As a monarchist I'm not going to argue there are no good arguments against my position, that would be just as silly.
We could end up like the French with the Government spending more on the Presidency than we do on the Monarchy, and more on maintaining the Disestablished Church Buildings than we prviously did on grants etc to the church institution.
StillWaters said:
» show previous quotes
That can’t be right.
He is saying - I think - that the structure of the LLP means that these 4 law firms are reducing their tax bills by £4bn.
Which implies they are making profits of £29bn - I don’t believe that. (At 13.8%)
Their total revenues were £8.4in 2024 (Links 2.1; A&O 2.2; FBD £1.8; CC 2.3). I can believe that they paid out £4bn in partners profits. Which would mean that the lost tax is in the region of £500m.
Still very significant, but…
I said:
I agree that your numbers are more realistic but why on earth do we have a tax system that once again results in different levels of tax being raised depending on the vehicle for your business? We need a massive simplification and homogenisation of taxes so that you pay the same tax on the same income whether you earn it, receive it in dividends, receive it in pensions, operate through a company, an LLP or a partnership or some other model such as a trust etc etc. These multiple distortions may work well for accountants but they damage our economy and encourage non productive efforts to play the system.
But anyway - my view prior to the reign of the current monarch was that he would be the last hereditary head of state. People would just find him too ridiculous. Actually, he's been a lot better than I feared. But he just doesn't have the magic of his mother. She was probably the most famous person in the world. She had probably met more people than anyone else in the world. She could enthuse royalists while making low grade republicans happily suspend disbelief. She is still the person most people associate with the words 'the Queen'.
The current king is doing his best and has carved out some interesting niches (like urban design), but I fear it is not enough. The magic is gone.
It's silly in its ceremonial aspect, naturally, but I've yet to be persuaded its such a big deal that we need big changes in that area. Not many of our problems could not be addressed without tackling it.
I would expect remaining Caribbean monarchies to end fairly soon (some have been working on it for seemingly decades, it's surprising more have not done so already), and possibly only your UK/Canada/Australia ones in the medium term, but I presently expect the monarchy to last my lifetime here.
However, these things can be more brittle than expected - if people don't really care to change it can continue on without much enthusiasm (eg Canada), but equally support can erode quickly if the wrong monarch messed up in a big way.
Anti-wheelchair A-Barrier in a cocktail dress as part of an "art" project.
Doesn't matter - it still blocks mobility scooters and power wheelchairs, as is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010.
And it needs to come out to leave just an entrance.
https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1687198688949735424
To add insult to injury, @KeepBritainTidy have given the park a Green Flag, for which compliance with the Equality Act 2010, and "Access for All", are basic criteria.
https://x.com/mattwardman/status/1687201260301340676
This is at ///puns.rust.paid. Very PB.
Has anywhere tried to just not have a Head of State, not even a boring token elected one?
Presumably, something in the setup of a nation breaks, but what?
Some more perspective on those supposedly 'huge' costs.
And this is the point, surely. Those that want to pull down traditional "conservative" parts of the country such as the monarchy in the belief that this will lead the way to a happy egalitarian "liberal" future are going to be proven very disappointed indeed.
The beneficiaries will be the illiberal hard right. They are the ones who benefit from disorientating change and the insecurity that comes with it.
The "cost" of the coronation is meaningless without (a) comparing it to the economic and softpower boost it gives to UK Plc and (b) comparing it to the cost of a presidential investment, which will be far from zero, with very little boost to the economics or softpower of UK Plc.
Next.
The next coronation will provide something of a quandary for suburban Billy who’s just your average millionaire next door, down with the young dads. Not sure acres of gold leaf and some attention seeker with a sword will be a good fit.
Blair Force One was supposed to be a Concord at one point.
The hacks were very upset when the “seats in a refuelling tanker” thing was unveiled under the Coalition. They’d come to write brutal pieces about luxury for politicians, while luxuriating themselves. Then they got to sit in standard seats and not even get a glass of bubbly.
People crave and look for that, and we all like our myths, legends and history, whilst despising politicians.
I'm not worried.
So, about a 30% chance in the next 5 years
As we've often mentioned, the late Queen was essentially a social democrat who Thatcher famously disliked for m beinh this, abd Charles and William are much the same, in this.
See also: House of Lords.
That's why I see myself as a small-c conservative: I'm not against change, but change for change's sake often ends in a far worse situation. Try to make good changes, mostly in incremental evolutions (rarely revolutions). Think the changes, and their effects, through. You won't always get it right, but you'll do better than many of the changes both governing parties have given us over the last three decades.
But don't remain static, either. Preserve what 'works', alter what doesn't.
As for the Coronation, the cost is trivial in the scheme of things.
Lived there for a year or so when a toddler, even remember being taken to the original Madam Doubtfire’s.
Where's The Truman Show apparatus when you need it?
"Cue the Sun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn5oqtmzGMk
Were it not for that we'd have had a delinquent Nazi-sympathising King on the throne, who couldn't control his behaviour or keep his gob shut, and the Attlee government would have abolished the monarchy in their post 1945 administration.
“Could”!!
I'm unsure if that was the NHS working well or badly. Certainly, seeing the surgeon before prepping me might have been good. Though maybe the blood results fed into the decision.
Mr. Jessop, blimey, hope you're ok.
F1: working through ideas now... tempted by something a bit long on Gasly.
https://x.com/TalalAlhaj/status/1858591812665159956
The British monarchy is old, trusted, comforting, and consoling. The world is a fucking freakshow, but the King of England is in his castle, as he has been since 800AD and Alfred the Great
Honestly, with the universe in terrifying flux, who is going to vote for fairly pointless and dramatic change, which will be an enormous emotional wrench (even for Republicans)?
It is never going to happen, bar, as I say, a huge war or some similar apocalypse
But now that has happened I really cannot be bothered. We have so many real problems to address as a nation and it would frankly be too self indulgent for words to waste time and energy replacing the Royal family when those problems are not being addressed. We can stick to pointless, irrelevant gestures such as getting rid of the hereditaries in the House of Lords and stagger on.
It's.... Satanic
Trudeau was filmed dancing badly, while the anti-semites had a riot in Montreal.
So she called me up.
I turned up in a suit and asked a convenient nurse to show me the diagnostics. So she flipped the screen around. Apparently she thought I was a doctor…
Whatever you think about Brexit, one thing it did make clear is that system changes can eat up a surprising amount of government attention and time, and basically blow your chances of doing anything else at the same time. So if you're going to make them you'd better be convinced that the change is necessary and the gains will be worth the candle. On the monarchy and HoL reform I am not convinced.
We all go to sleep around November 15 and wake up March 15. We burn up all the fat so we are thin and athletic when we re-emerge. We also prolong our lives by 50 years. And skip winter every year. What's not to love? We can move Christmas to Easter
The plan to combine staff across the newspaper, magazines and supplements, which are owned by Reach, was announced on Friday in an internal email to staff from the Mirror’s editor-in-chief, Caroline Waterston.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/23/daily-mirror-and-ok-magazine-to-merge-staff
*Prays his touch hasn't deserted him*
Also, this is the price I pay for my generally quite fortunate life of travel. When I am NOT travelling I REALLY notice how shit our climate is (which it is, relatively) - much more than I used to
I shall try to restrain my lamentations to my daily jeremiad against the darkness
Doesn't get as hideously hot as the Med coast (esp these days), avoids the high winds of the western Algarve
No other country has the NHS, and few have anything much like it. Other countries do have healthcare systems though, many considerably better than ours. If we hadn't created the NHS we might have something more like the French or German systems. And my guess is you'd probably still be around.
We spend £72 million on a coronation.
Let's spend it on a presidential election every five years instead.
One of the guests was a Spanish journalist who spoke about the Royal visit a few days after the floods and the reaction of the crowds throwing mud. She said the impression given in the UK media was of it being a serious problem for the Spanish Royals when in fact it was the exact opposite. The anger was directed against the Spanish Socialist PM and the Valencia Region Right Wing President who had been throwing blame at each other since the floods.
Apparently both the PM and President fled but the Royals stayed and spoke to the crowd even though they were covered in mud. This went down extremely well with the crowd and has gone down extremely well in Spain as well and the Royal's standing has much improved. The only UK paper that has really covered this properly is the Times.
There were few who thought him a starter,
Many who thought themselves smarter.
But he ended PM,
CH and OM,
an Earl and a Knight of the Garter.
Surely not!
The Med does not, for me, have proper beaches.
(Is that sufficiently BJO like?)
Only about eight years later, ofcourse, there was the other famous case of the Queen's Christmas message that Thatcher's No.10 was supposed to have vetoed, because of "moving away from the language of division in our society" was supposed to have been a clear dig at Thatcher, around
the time of the miners' strike.
I'm having a lovely November. And today is the perfect day to bake the Christmas Cake.
Which will start in 20 minutes.
COP29, which started badly with plenty of no shows, is now on the verge of a complete breakdown, and that's on top of the Commonwealth hustle and FUBAR last month:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8jykpdgr08t
God bless the King!
Betting Post
F1: in the end, went for a boring 1.6 on Leclerc to beat Verstappen.
However, a few other things. If you backed the 7.5 tip on Sainz early on, hedge at 3.5.
Also, if you've got a free bet or feel like flinging a pound somewhere, there are some interesting Gasly/Ocon bets.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/11/las-vegas-pre-race-2024.html
Edited extra bit: I need to be off now. Best of luck to those who bet.
To rescue Britain, the public need to demand:
1. Border controls. Remove illegal arrivals immediately, appeals heard overseas.
2. Large-scale deportation of those who entered illegally. No foreign courts holding jurisdiction.
3. Concerted assimilation, with a policy to deport radical imams and extreme Islamists.
4. End BBC licence fee. They lie.
5. Repeal Equality Act, Human Rights Act and close “supreme” court. None of these innovations have protected our natural liberties.
6. Give parents a legal right to control their share to local education budget. Parent power is the only way to counter woke indoctrination.
7. Abolish all renewable energy targets and restrictions on hydrocarbons.
8. Terminate QE and unwind monetary manipulation that has destroyed productivity.
9. 10 percent across the board cut in public spending to save the country from looming bankruptcy. Pain now so our children might not be poorer than us.
10. Department of Prime Minister to end the clown show of incompetence in Westminster
https://x.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1860351187213746539
In the end, somthing like this will be tried, because, in the end, voters will vote for it, in their desperation
Good afternoon, everybody.
https://thecritic.co.uk/labour-and-monarchy/
"The British Labour Party has never been a republican party, even if it has had republicans in it. Ninety-nine years ago, the Labour conference considered a motion “that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished”. The motion was overwhelmingly defeated. George Lansbury, who vies with Jeremy Corbyn for the title of Labour’s most left-wing leader, told conference delegates that it was the capitalist system that made people poor, not the King."
On Atlee, specifically:
"In 1959, Attlee wrote an essay on “The Role of the Monarchy” for The Observer. Labour’s greatest prime minister explained that whilst he had been responsible for many radical changes in British society, “there is one feature of which I have never felt any urge to abolish, and that is the monarchy”. For Attlee, the great advantage of the constitutional monarch is that he or she stands as “the general representative of the people”. Attlee wrote that Britain was lucky “in having as head of state a person who is not the choice of one section of the people but is the common possession, so to speak, of them all”."
A strange argument
I am deeply apprehensive about a Trump Presidency but the prospect of an end of these circuses is something to welcome.
The earliest sunset, where I am, to the nearest minute, is 4 pm. We’ll have that in just two weeks’ time, after which there is basically ten days when nothing changes, then we resume the march towards springtime.
Yes, they are incredible. Wild and beautiful and huge and clean. Great surfing (apparently - I don't surf)
If there is any criticism it is the wind, it can be brutal and it somehow makes the hot sun hotter
But nonetheless magnificent
Shame about Portuguese food. It's OK if you stick to grilled sardines and custard tarts. Nice wine