Skip to content

Stripping Prince Andrew of his titles, the country wants the King to act – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,747
edited October 22 in General
Stripping Prince Andrew of his titles, the country wants the King to act – politicalbetting.com

Critics dispute No10's claim that stripping Prince Andrew of his royal titles is a matter for the King, but most Britons say that the King (55%) rather than Parliament (26%) should make the decisionyougov.co.uk/topics/polit…

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • ManOfGwentManOfGwent Posts: 239
    Only an Act of Parliament can remove a peerage. Has been the case since Henry VIII, so even if the King willed it, parliament would have to be involved.
  • The first three words of the headline might be the most horrific thing I’ve ever typed.

    Sorry for the nightmares.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 47,739

    The first three words of the headline might be the most horrific thing I’ve ever typed.

    Sorry for the nightmares.

    We'll be ok. Don't sweat it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    Only an Act of Parliament can remove a peerage. Has been the case since Henry VIII, so even if the King willed it, parliament would have to be involved.

    Graun analysis is interesting, not least from the point of view of who doesn't want to deal with the hot brick.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/20/dealing-prince-andrew-problem-help-ease-william-accession-throne
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/20/labour-prefer-to-dodge-prince-andrew-scandal-despite-growing-disquiet
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    edited October 22
    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 6,883

    The first three words of the headline might be the most horrific thing I’ve ever typed.

    Sorry for the nightmares.

    Especially as you’re not a 17 year old girl.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,701
    You have to feel sorry for the people who live in York and Sussex.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674
    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,831
    ydoethur said:

    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.

    Was he not also offered the crown himself?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055
    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Edwasrd VIII was a criminal?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674

    ydoethur said:

    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.

    Was he not also offered the crown himself?
    Yes, that's what I was thinking of.
  • HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Which is up to Starmer not the King to pass
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,747
    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Edwasrd VIII was a criminal?
    He was associated with Ribbentrop, which isn't a great look.
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Edwasrd VIII was a criminal?
    He was associated with Ribbentrop, which isn't a great look.
    Didn’t Churchill threaten to court-martial the Duke of Windsor?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    edited October 22
    ydoethur said:

    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.

    Oliver Cromwell not only executed the King and made himself Lord Protector of a Republic, he scrapped the House of Lords and scrapped Bishops and scrapped the BCP and made the Church of England into a Baptist or Presbyterian church in all but name.

    He wrecked our constitution even more than Corbyn or Polanski would have
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Edwasrd VIII was a criminal?
    He was associated with Ribbentrop, which isn't a great look.
    Bit more than that, but surely that was after he got dropped from the First XI and put in the third reserves?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055
    edited October 22
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.

    Oliver Cromwell not only executed the King and made himself Lord Protector of a Republic, he scrapped the House of Lords and scrapped Bishops and scrapped the BCP and made the Church of England into a Baptist or Presbyterian in all but name.

    He wrecked our constitution even more than Corbyn or Polanski would have
    The Divine Right of Kings was a constitution? Edt: I suppose it was, but not much of one, which was the whole point.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055
    edited October 22
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Which is up to Starmer not the King to pass
    MPs. Not SKS or HMtK. Edit: and Lords, too. Constitution, innit.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,278
    I'd have thought Charles I would be a better example than Cromwell in the header ?

    As Ydoethur points out Cromwell pretty much ensured constitutional monarchy for, well, at least the next 367 years after his death.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,278
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.

    Oliver Cromwell not only executed the King and made himself Lord Protector of a Republic, he scrapped the House of Lords and scrapped Bishops and scrapped the BCP and made the Church of England into a Baptist or Presbyterian church in all but name.

    He wrecked our constitution even more than Corbyn or Polanski would have
    He also wrecked Kenilworth castle, which is a shame as it would have meant 2 splendid intact castles within 18 miles of each other in south Warwickshire (Obviously the other is Warwick castle). The absolute vandal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Edwasrd VIII was a criminal?
    He was associated with Ribbentrop, which isn't a great look.
    Bit more than that, but surely that was after he got dropped from the First XI and put in the third reserves?
    It was before.

    Ribbentrop was writing memos confidently predicting a civil war in Britain because Edward had so many supporters.

    One of them being one of Ribbentrop's own ex-(or possibly not so ex-) girlfriends, a certain Wallis Simpson...
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,896
    This feels like a problem that could be solved by a friendly back-bencher and some tactical sick days for the party leaders.
  • HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Nah, one of the King’s aides just needs to write a letter to The Times, that’s how our constitution works.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    Edwasrd VIII was a criminal?
    He was associated with Ribbentrop, which isn't a great look.
    Bit more than that, but surely that was after he got dropped from the First XI and put in the third reserves?
    It was before.

    Ribbentrop was writing memos confidently predicting a civil war in Britain because Edward had so many supporters.

    One of them being one of Ribbentrop's own ex-(or possibly not so ex-) girlfriends, a certain Wallis Simpson...
    Ah! Always a pleasure to have reasoned and documented historical argument.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,831
    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Just get rid of the monarchy. Easy.

    In reality, I'm probably in a very small minority here, but has Andrew actually been charged with anything? Or convicted? He appears to be a loathsome slab of humanity, but he's not alone in that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674
    edited October 22
    Foss said:

    This feels like a problem that could be solved by a friendly back-bencher and some tactical sick days for the party leaders.

    I think this is a problem that won't be solved by anything short of an improbable incident involving a window and a Russian parlour game.

    Even if he's attainted, he's still a royal.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,747
    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Legally, the King has done about all he can.

    If you want to bin him from the succession, that’s up to Parliament.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,896
    ydoethur said:

    Foss said:

    This feels like a problem that could be solved by a friendly back-bencher and some tactical sick days for the party leaders.

    I think this is a problem that could won't be solved by anything short of an improbable incident involving a window and a Russian parlour game.

    Even if he's attainted, he's still a royal.
    Tragic hunting accident. Is Dick Cheney available for hire?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Legally, the King has done about all he can.

    If you want to bin him from the succession, that’s up to Parliament.
    Quite so.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,171
    HYUFD said:

    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do

    Has he been found guilty of anything?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    All the more reason to resolve it (I mean the stuff). It's never going to end otherwise.
  • Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do

    Has he been found guilty of anything?
    Public decency
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,789
    Leave him in a room alone, with a loaded revolver, and a bottle of brandy.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,236

    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Legally, the King has done about all he can.

    If you want to bin him from the succession, that’s up to Parliament.
    I must be missing something. I though he had relinquished using the Ducal title, and handed back the garter. So that's, effectively, dealt with.
    No-one can really do anything about him being a prince, because he is one, as mum was Queen.

    Is it just really about the property now?

    For the record, I'm a monarchist but not much of a royalist as I'm not much interested in the personalities, although always respected the Queen, personally, and rather like Charles and sympathise with his preoccupations, such as the environment and human-friendly architecture.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,268
    edited October 22
    Is not the way these things are done constitutionally that the King graciously informs his parliament he wants them to remove the title and they graciously oblige?

    In all truth it’s a bit of a fiction - the decision would have been made at palace/government level beforehand and soundings taken to ensure that Parliament will dutifully wave it through so as to avoid the monarch becoming politicised.

    For a practical example see Charles asking for Anne and Edward to be added as Counsellors of State.

    So I don’t think that nothing more can be done by the Palace - they are still able, with government support - to remove the title. And I’m pretty sure the government wouldn’t act without the monarch’s blessing.

    In the end, I think they will have to probably remove the titles. I am less keen on taking his property off him. Whatever crap deal was done at the time he’s signed a legally valid lease. He has the option of facing up to the shame and voluntarily exiting it. Given he appears to have no shame, I’m not sure he will, but as @boulay sets out above I don’t think it’s a tremendously good idea to start passing acts of parliament to evict people who have legal rights to their property.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,693

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.

    Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.

    She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.

    I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Legally, the King has done about all he can.

    If you want to bin him from the succession, that’s up to Parliament.
    I must be missing something. I though he had relinquished using the Ducal title, and handed back the garter. So that's, effectively, dealt with.
    No-one can really do anything about him being a prince, because he is one, as mum was Queen.

    Is it just really about the property now?

    For the record, I'm a monarchist but not much of a royalist as I'm not much interested in the personalities, although always respected the Queen, personally, and rather like Charles and sympathise with his preoccupations, such as the environment and human-friendly architecture.
    Still a mess, apparently. The titles are, curiously, still extant (so e.g. he'll be blocking some meritorious candidate for the Garter).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/20/dealing-prince-andrew-problem-help-ease-william-accession-throne
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,841
    HYUFD said:
    And as a result of the transition will now be known as Ladychester Pride.



    Oh, sorry, not that kind of bust.

    Joking aside, always sad for those owed when this happens in any walk of life.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,262
    edited October 22

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    edited October 22
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do

    Has he been found guilty of anything?
    As far as I can see it not even underage sex in the UK where the age of consent is 16, potentially in New York where the age of consent is 18. Not proved he knew Giuffre was trafficked either or the sex was not consensual.

    In UK terms the only clear offence he is perhaps guilty of is leaking Giuffre's social security details to his security detail but DPA breaches are ICO not police matters unless breaches of police investigations
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960

    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Just get rid of the monarchy. Easy.

    In reality, I'm probably in a very small minority here, but has Andrew actually been charged with anything? Or convicted? He appears to be a loathsome slab of humanity, but he's not alone in that.
    Absolutely not, as already posted politician heads of state of the US and France have proved far worse than our King
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,747
    Pro_Rata said:

    HYUFD said:
    And as a result of the transition will now be known as Ladychester Pride.



    Oh, sorry, not that kind of bust.

    Joking aside, always sad for those owed when this happens in any walk of life.
    It seems that the various Pride events have been turned into rather crass commercial events, forgetting almost entirely what they were about. Bit like the ludicrous rework of Spitalfields Market.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,841
    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,604
    Sandpit said:

    You have to feel sorry for the people who live in York and Sussex.

    And invernessians, plus the poor peasants of John O’Groats who’ll have to send their daughters to the Castle of Mey to service the Beast of Windsor.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    edited October 22
    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,841
    edited October 22
    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
    She has months to open her mouth again between now and then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,689
    Interesting that this is another (rare) example of where Reform voters are in line with the views of the country as a whole.
  • HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
    What on earth has happened to the conservative party that she could be anywhere near the front opposition bench

    She is a disgrace and I await Badenoch's response to her disgusting remarks
  • boulay said:

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.

    Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.

    She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.

    I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
    Most of the Royal Family's "own" money belongs to the crown, ie the state, not the family as individuals though.

    If we became a republic then the Crown Estates would become our republic's estates, not disappear as the personal private fiefdom of an individual.
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    I'm not sure you understand what the word ringfence even means, based on prior conversations on this topic.

    What exactly does ringfence mean to you? Because last time we discussed this, it was not remotely that.
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,562
    Off topic, but many will find these two small steps cheering:
    One of the differences between President Donald Trump’s first and second terms is the meekness of Senate Republicans. The GOP caucus in 2025 has acquiesced to appointments of extreme or unqualified people to powerful executive-branch roles who never would have passed muster in 2017. But it’s good to know there’s still a limit somewhere after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) warned Monday night that his conference would reject the nomination of Paul Ingrassia, a 30-year-old provocateur, to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/21/paul-ingrassia-thune-senate-independence/
    (Ingrassia withdrew soon after this was published.)

    Thanks to their six-year terms, senators can often look farther ahead than House members -- and sometimes do.

    Former senator John E. Sununu (R) said Wednesday that he is running to reclaim his old seat representing New Hampshire, hoping to return to the chamber to replace Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who is retiring next year.

    In a video posted online Wednesday, the Republican pitched himself as a candidate who would help “calm the waters” in a “loud, dysfunctional, even angry” Congress.

    Sununu has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump in the past and supported GOP rivals in Trump’s presidential primaries.
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/22/john-sununu-new-hampshire-senate/

    Sununu earned a masters degree in mechanical engineering from MIT, and an MBA from Harvard.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Sununu

    (For the record: I preferred the same two alternatives to the Loser than Sununu did in 2016 and 2024, John Kasich and Nikki Haley)


  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,689

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    TV tax.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,689

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    Also I believe the landfill tax is set aside to fund nature repair projects, rather than disappearing into the Exchequer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    Sandpit said:

    You have to feel sorry for the people who live in York and Sussex.

    And invernessians, plus the poor peasants of John O’Groats who’ll have to send their daughters to the Castle of Mey to service the Beast of Windsor.
    No idea if it is true. Mind, it is close to the bright lights of Wick (and its airport), so not as bad as portrayed.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/25561787.prince-andrew-faces-exile-highland-town-amid-scandal/
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    TV tax.
    I missed that
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,693

    boulay said:

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.

    Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.

    She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.

    I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
    Most of the Royal Family's "own" money belongs to the crown, ie the state, not the family as individuals though.

    If we became a republic then the Crown Estates would become our republic's estates, not disappear as the personal private fiefdom of an individual.
    technically there are sources of funds that are considered the Royal Family’s money (even by people like Hodge) and does not “belong to the state” and some which are state funds to support them for matters such as renovation to Buck House etc.

    So whatever happens if we become a republic with regards to the various pots of money isn’t relevant to the Prince Andrew story.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,808
    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    As a Katie Lam fan, doesn't the PMB belong to Phip and she is just commenting on it? Surely he is the one that should get the approbation or otherwise (depending on POV)?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,367
    FPT:
    Andy_JS said:

    I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.

    I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?

    The burqa definitely shouldn't be banned in ordinary public spaces because banning things isn't the British way of doing things.
    All those scary face coverings need to be banned ... :wink:



    There was a much more blatant one recently, but I can't find it. All those poor ickle defenceless bald headed men.
  • HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    Also I believe the landfill tax is set aside to fund nature repair projects, rather than disappearing into the Exchequer.
    Do you think it is though ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,870
    On cultural cohesion.

    https://conservativehome.com/2025/10/22/the-tories-and-the-search-for-cultural-coherence/

    Btl comments hailing the new Thatcher. Send them home!
    Only the ones we don't like obviously.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,285

    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
    What on earth has happened to the conservative party that she could be anywhere near the front opposition bench

    She is a disgrace and I await Badenoch's response to her disgusting remarks
    She was cast as a future leader. TBF if the Tories survive and thrive as the left fragments, the Cons merging with Reform and promoting the Conservative name within the new Party could be it's way back into Government in 2029. The Reform Rag, Tag and Bobtail candidates won't be ready for Cabinet, Tories like Jenrick and Lam on the other hand will.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,367
    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
    What's she done now?

    Aside - I thought Kemi was quite well-targeted at PMQ, but she was OTT in making it political when her own Government was hardly covered in glory.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,055

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    TV tax.
    I missed that
    Water and sewerage rates in Scotland, perhaps NI.

    and

    https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/levy-to-finance-saf-revenue-certainty-will-be-passed-on-to-carriers
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,689

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    Also I believe the landfill tax is set aside to fund nature repair projects, rather than disappearing into the Exchequer.
    Do you think it is though ?
    Okay, it's not quite that simple.

    There's a 90% tax credit available if companies contribute money to community and environment projects. So it ends up having a similar effect to hypothecation, but via a mechanism that keeps the money out of reach of the State.

    https://www.veoliatrust.org/funding-guidance/contributing-third-party-ctp/
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,268
    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
    What's she done now?

    Aside - I thought Kemi was quite well-targeted at PMQ, but she was OTT in making it political when her own Government was hardly covered in glory.
    She is being opportunistic, but in this political cycle and with the baggage the Tories have she might as well go all in on the opportunism and hope to land blows.

    She is getting better at PMQs (moving up from “terrible” to “fairly mediocre”)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    edited October 22

    HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Katie Lam was the future once.

    For about 50 nanoseconds.

    If Jenrick becomes Tory leader could still be his Shadow Chancellor given she once worked for Goldman Sachs like Rishi
    What on earth has happened to the conservative party that she could be anywhere near the front opposition bench

    She is a disgrace and I await Badenoch's response to her disgusting remarks
    She was cast as a future leader. TBF if the Tories survive and thrive as the left fragments, the Cons merging with Reform and promoting the Conservative name within the new Party could be it's way back into Government in 2029. The Reform Rag, Tag and Bobtail candidates won't be ready for Cabinet, Tories like Jenrick and Lam on the other hand will.
    Unless Reform win more MPs than the Tories at the next GE and we keep FPTP they won't be merging. In that scenario Jenrick would only be Deputy PM to Farage anyway, albeit Farage could choose between Tice and Lam as his choice for Chancellor or Shadow Chancellor
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,419
    edited October 22
    Apple shitification via Liquid Ass apparently is killing battery life in real world usage. A big reason I use an Mx mac is the long battery life.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,367
    edited October 22
    Have we done the required Personal Loyalty Oath to the Leader of Kent County Council?

    (The first video had her saying: "I am not a dictator". )

    This is following on from Nigel chucking four out; the others are now all required to submit an approved form of written words:

    Today, Cllr Kemkaran sent this note to members just before 9am this morning: “To counter all the negativity, HQ would like a statement ready to issue in support of the leadership ideally signed by all members. “

    This was followed by another message titled “In support of our Leadership”.

    It reads: “We, the undersigned, believe in democracy and have full confidence in our leader, Cllr Linden Kemkaran.

    “During the hustings and subsequent vote for a group leader on May 8, 2025, Linden won overwhelmingly because we could see that she was the best person for the job.

    “Leading a large group of newly-elected county councillors was a huge task in itself. To also lead the largest and most complex authority in the country was an almost impossible task for one person to take on from a standing start.

    “But Linden rose to the challenge without hesitation. She has the opposition firmly on the run and under her guidance, Reform UK members are flourishing in their roles.

    “She is leading the group and the council with courage, integrity and discipline.”


    https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2025/10/21/county-council-leader-calls-on-reform-members-for-support/

    Ref: First Law of Holes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    You can't claim JSA or state pension now without paying NI and NI Credits, just scrap NI credits and require NI payments only to get JSA or state pension. Otherwise you only get UC or pension credit
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960

    boulay said:

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.

    Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.

    She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.

    I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
    Most of the Royal Family's "own" money belongs to the crown, ie the state, not the family as individuals though.

    If we became a republic then the Crown Estates would become our republic's estates, not disappear as the personal private fiefdom of an individual.
    The Crown Estate and Duchies have belonged to the Crown since Norman and Medieval times, they are not public sector nor taxpayer funded.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,268
    MattW said:

    Have we done the required Personal Loyalty Oath to the Leader of Kent County Council?

    (The first video had her saying: "I am not a dictator". )

    This is following on from Nigel chucking four out; the others are now all required to submit an approved form of written words:

    Today, Cllr Kemkaran sent this note to members just before 9am this morning: “To counter all the negativity, HQ would like a statement ready to issue in support of the leadership ideally signed by all members. “

    This was followed by another message titled “In support of our Leadership”.

    It reads: “We, the undersigned, believe in democracy and have full confidence in our leader, Cllr Linden Kemkaran.

    “During the hustings and subsequent vote for a group leader on May 8, 2025, Linden won overwhelmingly because we could see that she was the best person for the job.

    “Leading a large group of newly-elected county councillors was a huge task in itself. To also lead the largest and most complex authority in the country was an almost impossible task for one person to take on from a standing start.

    “But Linden rose to the challenge without hesitation. She has the opposition firmly on the run and under her guidance, Reform UK members are flourishing in their roles.

    “She is leading the group and the council with courage, integrity and discipline.”


    https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2025/10/21/county-council-leader-calls-on-reform-members-for-support/

    Ref: First Law of Holes.

    If you have to say you “believe in democracy”, you’re immediately casting a bit of doubt on it, to be frank…
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,747
    MattW said:

    Have we done the required Personal Loyalty Oath to the Leader of Kent County Council?

    (The first video had her saying: "I am not a dictator". )

    This is following on from Nigel chucking four out; the others are now all required to submit an approved form of written words:

    Today, Cllr Kemkaran sent this note to members just before 9am this morning: “To counter all the negativity, HQ would like a statement ready to issue in support of the leadership ideally signed by all members. “

    This was followed by another message titled “In support of our Leadership”.

    It reads: “We, the undersigned, believe in democracy and have full confidence in our leader, Cllr Linden Kemkaran.

    “During the hustings and subsequent vote for a group leader on May 8, 2025, Linden won overwhelmingly because we could see that she was the best person for the job.

    “Leading a large group of newly-elected county councillors was a huge task in itself. To also lead the largest and most complex authority in the country was an almost impossible task for one person to take on from a standing start.

    “But Linden rose to the challenge without hesitation. She has the opposition firmly on the run and under her guidance, Reform UK members are flourishing in their roles.

    “She is leading the group and the council with courage, integrity and discipline.”


    https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2025/10/21/county-council-leader-calls-on-reform-members-for-support/

    Ref: First Law of Holes.

    Is that the rule “When in a hole, hire Bagger 288”?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    boulay said:

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.

    Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.

    She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.

    I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
    Trump, Clinton, Spacey, Bill Gates, Lord Mandelson just some of the powerful and wealthy men who knew and partied with or holidayed with Epstein.

    No suggestion they did anything illegal of course but nor is it confirmed Andrew acted illegally yet either and all were in Epstein's orbit
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,419
    edited October 22
    Totally O/T....Slow Horses has totally jumped the shark this season. Very disappointing.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    Just merge National Insurance and Income Tax and make everyone pay the same rate of tax, regardless of how they earn it.
    Once again - LLP's big benefit is reducing the amount of EMPLOYER NI not employee...
    Yes, and once again, BOTH forms of NI should be abolished and rolled into Income Tax.

    Employers NI is a form of Income Tax levied only on those gainfully employed. Just as alcohol or fuel duty is a tax on alcohol and fuel. All incomes should face the same tax rate.
    Employers' NI is a payroll tax, not an income tax.
    Of course it is, and payroll taxes are taxes on people's income, just indirectly levied via the employer. Just as alcohol duty or fuel duty are taxes on alcohol or fuel.

    Employers NIC, like Employees NIC, should be completely abolished with it all rolled into Income Tax so that all incomes, regardless of how they are sourced, are taxed at the same rate.

    Of course that would horrify governments, and many voters, by revealing just how much tax we actually pay, but there's no reason only those working for a living should be taxed at a higher rate.
    No it should be fingfenced for JSA and the state pension. As I said pensioners should also pay NI ringfenced to fund social care
    Name one hypotheticated tax
    You can't claim JSA or state pension now without paying NI and NI Credits, just scrap NI credits and require NI payments only to get JSA or state pension. Otherwise you only get UC or pension credit
    That is not an answer
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,432

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.

    His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
  • MattWMattW Posts: 30,367
    Another one from The Rest is Politics - this an excellent conversation about mental health, where Bad 'Al has been active for a long time.

    https://youtu.be/F-ivM2L2dHQ?t=2358

    (I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    'Volodymyr Zelenskyy has voiced support for Donald Trump’s proposal for Ukraine and Russia to freeze the war at the current frontlines, calling it “a good compromise”, even as he acknowledged Moscow had made clear it would not accept the arrangement.

    “I think that was a good compromise but I’m not sure that Putin will support it, and I said it to the president,” Zelenskyy said on a visit to Oslo, part of a tour of Scandinavia to seek additional military support.

    The US president had earlier this week told reporters on Air Force One: “They can negotiate something later on down the line. But I said cut and stop at the battle line.” He was speaking shortly before a planned summit with Vladimir Putin was put on hold after Russia said its goal of seeking the whole of the eastern Donbas region, including areas held by Ukraine, had not changed.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/zelenskyy-calls-trumps-proposal-to-freeze-war-at-current-frontlines-good-compromise
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,213
    edited October 22
    On thread ...It won't happen. Too much of a precedent.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,432
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oliver Cromwell was not a good thing for a republic.

    Even in his lifetime, he led to a very active movement to restore the monarchy, if only to curb his powers.

    Oliver Cromwell not only executed the King and made himself Lord Protector of a Republic, he scrapped the House of Lords and scrapped Bishops and scrapped the BCP and made the Church of England into a Baptist or Presbyterian in all but name.

    He wrecked our constitution even more than Corbyn or Polanski would have
    The Divine Right of Kings was a constitution? Edt: I suppose it was, but not much of one, which was the whole point.
    Surely it was absolutely a constitution of one?

    A bit like Pratchett’s famous definition of the Patrician: one man, one vote and he is that man.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,972
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do

    Has he been found guilty of anything?
    No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,432
    Foss said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foss said:

    This feels like a problem that could be solved by a friendly back-bencher and some tactical sick days for the party leaders.

    I think this is a problem that could won't be solved by anything short of an improbable incident involving a window and a Russian parlour game.

    Even if he's attainted, he's still a royal.
    Tragic hunting accident. Is Dick Cheney available for hire?
    Surely Walter Tirel would be more appropriate?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,419
    edited October 22
    MattW said:

    Another one from The Rest is Politics - this an excellent conversation about mental health, where Bad 'Al has been active for a long time.

    https://youtu.be/F-ivM2L2dHQ?t=2358

    (I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)

    It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.

    Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
  • HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.

    His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
    You seem to be trying to excuse him

    Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674
    boulay said:

    Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.

    The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.

    Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.

    She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.

    I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
    If I were Dodgy Hodgy, I would be exceedingly careful when making comments about the proper punishment for wealthy associates of known and dangerous paedophiles.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,432

    Is not the way these things are done constitutionally that the King graciously informs his parliament he wants them to remove the title and they graciously oblige?

    In all truth it’s a bit of a fiction - the decision would have been made at palace/government level beforehand and soundings taken to ensure that Parliament will dutifully wave it through so as to avoid the monarch becoming politicised.

    For a practical example see Charles asking for Anne and Edward to be added as Counsellors of State.

    So I don’t think that nothing more can be done by the Palace - they are still able, with government support - to remove the title. And I’m pretty sure the government wouldn’t act without the monarch’s blessing.

    In the end, I think they will have to probably remove the titles. I am less keen on taking his property off him. Whatever crap deal was done at the time he’s signed a legally valid lease. He has the option of facing up to the shame and voluntarily exiting it. Given he appears to have no shame, I’m not sure he will, but as @boulay sets out above I don’t think it’s a tremendously good idea to start passing acts of parliament to evict people who have legal rights to their property.

    Compulsory purchase?

    You are allowed to exercise that right for flood defences, and the monarchy is under threat from a tide of sh1t so…
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,960
    edited October 22
    DougSeal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do

    Has he been found guilty of anything?
    No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
    In the Middle Ages or even the Tudor or early Stuart period Andrew would probably have been heading for a cell in the Tower of London and beheading by now, certainly once his nephew became King
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674

    Is not the way these things are done constitutionally that the King graciously informs his parliament he wants them to remove the title and they graciously oblige?

    In all truth it’s a bit of a fiction - the decision would have been made at palace/government level beforehand and soundings taken to ensure that Parliament will dutifully wave it through so as to avoid the monarch becoming politicised.

    For a practical example see Charles asking for Anne and Edward to be added as Counsellors of State.

    So I don’t think that nothing more can be done by the Palace - they are still able, with government support - to remove the title. And I’m pretty sure the government wouldn’t act without the monarch’s blessing.

    In the end, I think they will have to probably remove the titles. I am less keen on taking his property off him. Whatever crap deal was done at the time he’s signed a legally valid lease. He has the option of facing up to the shame and voluntarily exiting it. Given he appears to have no shame, I’m not sure he will, but as @boulay sets out above I don’t think it’s a tremendously good idea to start passing acts of parliament to evict people who have legal rights to their property.

    Compulsory purchase?

    You are allowed to exercise that right for flood defences, and the monarchy is under threat from a tide of sh1t so…
    Removing Andrew would remove a lot of shit from the house of Windsor.

    And a big shit from the castle grounds.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,432
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    a

    HYUFD said:

    Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.

    Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.

    In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever

    The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look

    He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile

    If it takes an act of parliament so be it
    Take away titles - fine

    Punishment is for the courts. Unless you want to revive acts of attainder.
    I'm inclined to think this is getting beyoind mere titles. The RF seem seriously worried about the effect on the monarchy as an institution. See the links I posted earlier.
    Legally, the King has done about all he can.

    If you want to bin him from the succession, that’s up to Parliament.
    I must be missing something. I though he had relinquished using the Ducal title, and handed back the garter. So that's, effectively, dealt with.
    No-one can really do anything about him being a prince, because he is one, as mum was Queen.

    Is it just really about the property now?

    For the record, I'm a monarchist but not much of a royalist as I'm not much interested in the personalities, although always respected the Queen, personally, and rather like Charles and sympathise with his preoccupations, such as the environment and human-friendly architecture.
    Still a mess, apparently. The titles are, curiously, still extant (so e.g. he'll be blocking some meritorious candidate for the Garter).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/20/dealing-prince-andrew-problem-help-ease-william-accession-throne
    He’s a Royal Knight not a Companion Knight so he’s not a bed blocker.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,674
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting Reform voters are most opposed to removing Andrew’s titles, even more than Tories although a majority of Tory and Reform voters still back removing them just not as much as Labour and LD voters do

    Has he been found guilty of anything?
    No but they’re not proposing imprisoning him, which is a common outcome of what he’s been accused of. People legitimately get fired from jobs just for brining the employer into disrepute. Why not get him fired from the aristocracy?
    In the Middle Ages or even the Tudor period Andrew would probably have been heading for a cell in the Tower of London and beheading by now, certainly once his nephew became King
    Traditionally, annoying royal dukes were permitted to choose their own deaths.

    That's how the Duke of Clarence was drowned in a vat of Malmsey wine in 1478.

    I'm wondering what the equivalent would be for Andrew, but I'm not comfortable with the images his - ahem - preferences are conjuring.
Sign In or Register to comment.