Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
I don't agree with Richard. The parties know their candidates well and it's reasonable that they should pick potential Cabinet Ministers etc. at the top of the list. If their choices are stupid they lose votes. Most other systems can be and are being gamed, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. d'Hondt produces a result in line with the population's general preferences, bearing in mind that a lot of voters couldn't even tell you who all the candidates are.
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
Ah, so he’s the victim.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
IIRC the report was that he was given £76. Apart from anything else t's, I would think, very difficult to get onto Chelmsford station platform without paying. And yes, I've been there. Not without paying, I hasten to add!
Phew, being a fare dodger would have been the last straw!
Bottom line is that Harris is doing Kuenssberg more of a favour by appearing on the show than Kuenssberg is doing Harris by giving her a platform.
There's a reason why few chat show interviews are particularly probing.
Harris is plugging her book. She’s getting publicity on the back of it for her book. She wouldn’t do it otherwise. Laura K’s team are definitely doing her a favour here. She was in the luvvie of the week slot where people come on and plug whatever drama or play they are in.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
"For the first time, the BSA survey asked the public to choose between keeping the monarchy or replacing it with an elected head of state. A majority (58%) favour retaining the monarchy, while nearly four in ten (38%) would prefer an elected head of state.
But the data shows sharp divides across age, politics and identity:
Generational divide: Almost six in ten (59%) of younger people aged 16–34 favour an elected head of state, whereas three-quarters (76%) of those aged 55+ support continuation of the monarchy."
Though even the BSA survey found a massive 82% of Conservative voters and 77% of Reform voters and a comfortable 57% of LD voters want to keep the monarchy, so few votes in going republican for Badenoch, Farage or Davey but lots to lose. Even voters still backing Labour prefer the monarchy over a republic by 1%, so too risky for Starmer to touch it either.
Prince William also polls far better with 18 to 24s than the King, 52% of 18-24s have a favourable view of Prince William, 22% unfavourable. The King though has only 30% of 18 to 24s with a favourable view of him, 46% unfavourable.
Classic stuff. Remember the Battle of Cable Street? Protecting our vulnerable and subsequently grateful community is how protection rackets and political movements start, in extremis even terrorist groups.
It's a part of the world I know and when you get off at Whitechapel you very much get the sense you're not in Kansas any longer. Tayyab's is however exceptionally good for food and I was well looked after at The Royal London Hospital.
What I don't know is if these "protesters" are newer generation Bengalis and as I reported there has been a lot of tension between the established Bengali community and newer more conservative arrivals from Bangladesh (there was some hope with the downfall of Sheikh Hasina, tensions might ease. It may be these Muslims aren't from Bangladesh at all but from other parts of Africa and Asia.
The local politics of this is whether Rahman and Aspire can consolidate their hold on Tower Hamlets next May. They won a majority in 2022 but defections have eroded that and they currently have 22 councillors with the combined opposition on 23 (Lab 16, Ind 5, Con 1, Green 1). There's also the marginal Bethnal Green & Stepney parliamentary seat.
Rahman have been talking to Your Party, so they may contest the next election as such rather than as Aspire. I don’t think that consorting with the corrupt Rahman will look good for Your Party.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
The Tory Government allowed prisons to get over full which means prisoners are being released early.
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -
The five per week isn’t people being released early, it’s people being released incorrectly.
The case in the news was supposed to be released into the custody of “British ICE” (I actually don’t know what they’re called, the police that manage deportations), but was instead just allowed to walk out of the gate a free man.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
Wait till you hear how many Brits voted against the Tories, election after election.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
"For the first time, the BSA survey asked the public to choose between keeping the monarchy or replacing it with an elected head of state. A majority (58%) favour retaining the monarchy, while nearly four in ten (38%) would prefer an elected head of state.
But the data shows sharp divides across age, politics and identity:
Generational divide: Almost six in ten (59%) of younger people aged 16–34 favour an elected head of state, whereas three-quarters (76%) of those aged 55+ support continuation of the monarchy."
Though even the BSA survey found a massive 82% of Conservative voters and 77% of Reform voters and a comfortable 57% of LD voters want to keep the monarchy, so few votes in going republican for Badenoch, Farage or Davey but lots to lose. Even voters still backing Labour prefer the monarchy over a republic by 1%, so too risky for Starmer to touch it either.
Prince William also polls far better with 18 to 24s than the King, 52% of 18-24s have a favourable view of Prince William, 22% unfavourable. The King though has only 30% of 18 to 24s with a favourable view of him, 46% unfavourable.
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
The Tory Government allowed prisons to get over full which means prisoners are being released early.
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -
The five per week isn’t people being released early, it’s people being released incorrectly.
The case in the news was supposed to be released into the custody of “British ICE” (I actually don’t know what they’re called, the police that manage deportations), but was instead just allowed to walk out of the gate a free man.
Unless they have got whole-life tariffs, then being released incorrectly is being released early.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
"For the first time, the BSA survey asked the public to choose between keeping the monarchy or replacing it with an elected head of state. A majority (58%) favour retaining the monarchy, while nearly four in ten (38%) would prefer an elected head of state.
But the data shows sharp divides across age, politics and identity:
Generational divide: Almost six in ten (59%) of younger people aged 16–34 favour an elected head of state, whereas three-quarters (76%) of those aged 55+ support continuation of the monarchy."
Though even the BSA survey found a massive 82% of Conservative voters and 77% of Reform voters and a comfortable 57% of LD voters want to keep the monarchy, so few votes in going republican for Badenoch, Farage or Davey but lots to lose. Even voters still backing Labour prefer the monarchy over a republic by 1%, so too risky for Starmer to touch it either.
Prince William also polls far better with 18 to 24s than the King, 52% of 18-24s have a favourable view of Prince William, 22% unfavourable. The King though has only 30% of 18 to 24s with a favourable view of him, 46% unfavourable.
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
I don't agree with Richard. The parties know their candidates well and it's reasonable that they should pick potential Cabinet Ministers etc. at the top of the list. If their choices are stupid they lose votes. Most other systems can be and are being gamed, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. d'Hondt produces a result in line with the population's general preferences, bearing in mind that a lot of voters couldn't even tell you who all the candidates are.
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
I can’t speak for Richard, but I agree with Lord Hannan that it should be possible for the electorate to get rid of someone that they dislike or who isn’t performing.
In practice is was pretty much impossible for the electorate to fire Hannan from the European Parliament, because of his position on the party list voting system.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He used to rock up at the rugby and shake hands with all the teams.
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
The Tory Government allowed prisons to get over full which means prisoners are being released early.
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -
The five per week isn’t people being released early, it’s people being released incorrectly.
The case in the news was supposed to be released into the custody of “British ICE” (I actually don’t know what they’re called, the police that manage deportations), but was instead just allowed to walk out of the gate a free man.
Unless they have got whole-life tariffs, then being released incorrectly is being released early.
Accidentally released, rather than deliberately! Being transferred to another prison?
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
Wait till you hear how many Brits voted against the Tories, election after election.
NOT for head of state that is the point, FG and FF combined got lower voteshares in the last Irish general election than the Tories did in 2019
Escaped Epping migrant captured in Finsbury Park by police and arrested so will return to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence for sexual assault
I thought he was in the process of being deported when accidentally released? Is that not right?
He will get deported ultimately as he got a jail sentence of at least 12 months, though seems rather ridiculous to impose a jail sentence if he won't serve it, he should just have been sentenced to be deported in the first place!
He was to be transferred for deportation now - no idea where you get the idea he has more prison time to serve
He got a 12 month jail sentence just 2 months ago
He had a period on remand that reduced the 12 months, so that he was being deported now and no doubt will be on a plane very quickly
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
The Tory Government allowed prisons to get over full which means prisoners are being released early.
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -
The five per week isn’t people being released early, it’s people being released incorrectly.
The case in the news was supposed to be released into the custody of “British ICE” (I actually don’t know what they’re called, the police that manage deportations), but was instead just allowed to walk out of the gate a free man.
Unless they have got whole-life tariffs, then being released incorrectly is being released early.
If he’s supposed to be moved from Prison A to Immigration Facility B, but doesn’t arrive at B, then something or someone fcuked up.
That’s different than saying because of general overcrowding, people are being released on licence earlier than would usually be the case.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
Wait till you hear how many Brits voted against the Tories, election after election.
NOT for head of state that is the point, FG and FF combined got lower voteshares in the last Irish election than the Tories did in 2017 and 2019
But it's your logic about counting votes that is in question.
If you think Ms Connolly is crap over that many votes, just go on to draw a similar conclusion about your party.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He used to rock up at the rugby and shake hands with all the teams.
Indeed, so more of a ceremonial “royal” than a politician, there to support the country but stay out of day-to-day politics.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
Ah, so he’s the victim.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
IIRC the report was that he was given £76. Apart from anything else it's, I would think, very difficult to get onto Chelmsford station platform without paying. And yes, I've been there. Not without paying, I hasten to add!
Rogerdamus said he had no money. But then it seems, from what our Rog says, he was guilty of no more than a risqué joke 🤷♂️
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
Cricket news: England Women, having beaten New Zealand Women quite handily, are into the semi-finals of the World Cup and will play South Africa Women.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
Ah, so he’s the victim.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
IIRC the report was that he was given £76. Apart from anything else it's, I would think, very difficult to get onto Chelmsford station platform without paying. And yes, I've been there. Not without paying, I hasten to add!
Rogerdamus said he had no money. But then it seems, from what our Rog says, he was guilty of no more than a risqué joke 🤷♂️
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
I’ll be honest, I don’t know the ins and outs of the case, but Roger is saying all he did was tell a risqué joke. 🤷♂️
If that’s the case then it clearly is not as bad as actual physical attacks.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
Ah, so he’s the victim.
Maybe a crowdfunder is needed. They gave him no money !!!!
IIRC the report was that he was given £76. Apart from anything else it's, I would think, very difficult to get onto Chelmsford station platform without paying. And yes, I've been there. Not without paying, I hasten to add!
Rogerdamus said he had no money. But then it seems, from what our Rog says, he was guilty of no more than a risqué joke 🤷♂️
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
I’ll be honest, I don’t know the ins and outs of the case, but Roger is saying all he did was tell a risqué joke. 🤷♂️
If that’s the case then it clearly is not as bad as actual physical attacks.
All the reports I've seen say that some touching was involved and what was said, if reported correctly, didn't sound like a joke. And couldn't be construed as such.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
I’ll be honest, I don’t know the ins and outs of the case, but Roger is saying all he did was tell a risqué joke. 🤷♂️
If that’s the case then it clearly is not as bad as actual physical attacks.
As has been previously quoted
Here is the summary of the offences (note plural) from the BBC report on his trial:
Kebatu attempted to kiss the [14 year old] girl and placed his hand on her thigh, before asking her to kiss another child as he watched, his trial heard.
He then groped another woman who had offered to help him with his paperwork.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
Logically this doesn't make any sense. We already do in law. All the degrees may be repugnant, but there is still a range of different levels of severity within them.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
I’ll be honest, I don’t know the ins and outs of the case, but Roger is saying all he did was tell a risqué joke. 🤷♂️
If that’s the case then it clearly is not as bad as actual physical attacks.
As has been previously quoted
Here is the summary of the offences (note plural) from the BBC report on his trial:
Kebatu attempted to kiss the [14 year old] girl and placed his hand on her thigh, before asking her to kiss another child as he watched, his trial heard.
He then groped another woman who had offered to help him with his paperwork.
Hardly a lewd joke then !
Sorry if it was previously quoted. I spend some time here but not every waking minute,
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
I don't agree with Richard. The parties know their candidates well and it's reasonable that they should pick potential Cabinet Ministers etc. at the top of the list. If their choices are stupid they lose votes. Most other systems can be and are being gamed, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. d'Hondt produces a result in line with the population's general preferences, bearing in mind that a lot of voters couldn't even tell you who all the candidates are.
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
To say it is only about D'hondt vs FPTP is rather misleading. Although in that isntance I would choose FPTP every time. We should be aiming to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. But an AV system would alow greater choice by the electorate over who represented them compared to FPTP whilst preventing further power being given to parties. D'hondt is pretty much the worst system we could have as it allows parties to decide who represents us rather than the voter.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
What a shocking attempt to excuse a sexual assault on a 14 year old child
It wasn't the worst of sexual assaults, to be fair.
Which was reflected in the sentence
You cannot have any degree of sexual assault when it involves a child
I’ll be honest, I don’t know the ins and outs of the case, but Roger is saying all he did was tell a risqué joke. 🤷♂️
If that’s the case then it clearly is not as bad as actual physical attacks.
As has been previously quoted
Here is the summary of the offences (note plural) from the BBC report on his trial:
Kebatu attempted to kiss the [14 year old] girl and placed his hand on her thigh, before asking her to kiss another child as he watched, his trial heard.
He then groped another woman who had offered to help him with his paperwork.
Report in the Guardian: "NI parents caught in UK crackdown lose child benefit after travelling via Dublin Exclusive: new anti-fraud system fails to account for fact many return to country via airport in Irish capital."
It will be no surprise to many here that HMRC have, apparently, managed to fail to take account of reality.
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
I don't agree with Richard. The parties know their candidates well and it's reasonable that they should pick potential Cabinet Ministers etc. at the top of the list. If their choices are stupid they lose votes. Most other systems can be and are being gamed, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. d'Hondt produces a result in line with the population's general preferences, bearing in mind that a lot of voters couldn't even tell you who all the candidates are.
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
To say it is only about D'hondt vs FPTP is rather misleading. Although in that isntance I would choose FPTP every time. We should be aiming to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. But an AV system would alow greater choice by the electorate over who represented them compared to FPTP whilst preventing further power being given to parties. D'hondt is pretty much the worst system we could have as it allows parties to decide who represents us rather than the voter.
STV, as used in Ireland, is, surely, better than either.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He used to rock up at the rugby and shake hands with all the teams.
I can imagine Trump shaking hands with the US players and ignoring the opposing team. But not Higgins.
Also more cushy jobs for his fellow lawyers and public sector quangocrats as they get to sit for years attending meetings and writing reports to come up with predetermined conclusions that are generally either obvious or ignored anyway.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
The amgle that the media are missing about the released sex offender, is this isnt a one off. 5 people a week are mistakenly released.
Which is crazy, and should have the relevant minister up before Parliament every week explaining what went wrong in each case.
Wes Streeting was blaming the Tories for it.
LOL, how can losing five prisoners last week possibly be the fault of the previous government?
They should be investigating these like they were plane crashes, publishing a report on each and every one, so that everyone in the prison system quickly understands all of the possible failure modes.
The Tory Government allowed prisons to get over full which means prisoners are being released early.
However that simply means make sure you paperwork is completed correctly and that just requires resources so a bit of time and money -
The five per week isn’t people being released early, it’s people being released incorrectly.
The case in the news was supposed to be released into the custody of “British ICE” (I actually don’t know what they’re called, the police that manage deportations), but was instead just allowed to walk out of the gate a free man.
Unless they have got whole-life tariffs, then being released incorrectly is being released early.
Accidentally released, rather than deliberately! Being transferred to another prison?
He was being deported. Presumably the prison authorities released him and said "get out of here".
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
I don't agree with Richard. The parties know their candidates well and it's reasonable that they should pick potential Cabinet Ministers etc. at the top of the list. If their choices are stupid they lose votes. Most other systems can be and are being gamed, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. d'Hondt produces a result in line with the population's general preferences, bearing in mind that a lot of voters couldn't even tell you who all the candidates are.
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
To say it is only about D'hondt vs FPTP is rather misleading. Although in that isntance I would choose FPTP every time. We should be aiming to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. But an AV system would alow greater choice by the electorate over who represented them compared to FPTP whilst preventing further power being given to parties. D'hondt is pretty much the worst system we could have as it allows parties to decide who represents us rather than the voter.
I think d'Hondt is an excellent system. As long as the constituencies are big enough. For example, the three seat North East region we had for the Euros was too small to give proportionality in the outcome.
And having parties choose their candidate order is a feature, not a bug. Having members vote in primaries to determine who gets 9n the list, and in what order would encourage engagement in local parties. If an MP is seen to be doing a poor job, they might go from number two on the list to number six next time and be out the door.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He used to rock up at the rugby and shake hands with all the teams.
I can imagine Trump shaking hands with the US players and ignoring the opposing team. But not Higgins.
I remember when eng,and beat the Aussies for the RWC the graceless John Howard handing the winning medals to the victorious England team. I suspect the Trumpdozer would be a little more churlish,
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
I remember reading Dan Hannan’s critique of D’Hondt on the eve of one of the European elections, perhaps 2009.
The piece started something like “Next week I will be re-elected to the European Parliament”
He wasn’t joking either, he was #1 on the Tory list for a 12-member constituency, his party only needed to get 8% of the vote for him to be re-elected, and were polling in the high 30s.
I don't agree with Richard. The parties know their candidates well and it's reasonable that they should pick potential Cabinet Ministers etc. at the top of the list. If their choices are stupid they lose votes. Most other systems can be and are being gamed, sometimes to a ludicrous extent. d'Hondt produces a result in line with the population's general preferences, bearing in mind that a lot of voters couldn't even tell you who all the candidates are.
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
To say it is only about D'hondt vs FPTP is rather misleading. Although in that isntance I would choose FPTP every time. We should be aiming to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. But an AV system would alow greater choice by the electorate over who represented them compared to FPTP whilst preventing further power being given to parties. D'hondt is pretty much the worst system we could have as it allows parties to decide who represents us rather than the voter.
STV, as used in Ireland, is, surely, better than either.
Excess votes. Three day counts. Number elected for a party influenced by how many candidates they put forward.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
Apparently I'm descended from the Kings of Tara. Do I get a Dukedom?
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He used to rock up at the rugby and shake hands with all the teams.
I can imagine Trump shaking hands with the US players and ignoring the opposing team. But not Higgins.
I remember when eng,and beat the Aussies for the RWC the graceless John Howard handing the winning medals to the victorious England team. I suspect the Trumpdozer would be a little more churlish,
I was way too pissed to remember that bit!
Only time in my life I’ve been eight pints down at 10 O’Clock in the morning.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
Apparently I'm descended from the Kings of Tara. Do I get a Dukedom?
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to replace Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor rather than still have Xi. If I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
We'll see. The previous head of state, Michael D Higgins, was Labour, but it hardly showed as the powers of the presidency are so constrained.
He used to rock up at the rugby and shake hands with all the teams.
I can imagine Trump shaking hands with the US players and ignoring the opposing team. But not Higgins.
I remember when eng,and beat the Aussies for the RWC the graceless John Howard handing the winning medals to the victorious England team. I suspect the Trumpdozer would be a little more churlish,
I was way too pissed to remember that bit!
Only time in my life I’ve been eight pints down at 10 O’Clock in the morning.
I’m a chronic lightweight, it was 6 pints for me !!
A pub somewhere in Surbiton, don’t even remember what it was.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
By that logic two thirds back her
63% of the valid votes cast were for Connolly. She has said quite clearly that she will respect the Constitutional limits on the Presidency, which means she represents continuity with Higgins - giving voice to the Irish consensus on neutrality and opposition to genocide and little else - but with superior ball control. Perhaps she will inspire the Irish soccer team.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
...
You barely noticed that Higgins was President of Ireland for the last fourteen years, it's going to be of almost zero consequence that Connolly is President now.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
...
You barely noticed that Higgins was President of Ireland for the last fourteen years, it's going to be of almost zero consequence that Connolly is President now.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
Apparently I'm descended from the Kings of Tara. Do I get a Dukedom?
Ask @HYUFD He seems to know about these things. Perhaps he can help you pursue your claim?
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
A dictator or absolute monarch wouldn't, a constitutional monarch like our King certainly would
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
If we hadn't got the D'Hondt regional list in Wales, careerists like Alun Cairns (on his first outing to the Senedd) would never have got that step up to Westminster and greater things.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
The head of state doesn't have to be political. Look at Ireland.
The new one seems quite political to me.
The previous one was pretty political too and was criticised by some Irish constitutional lawyers for his conduct in office.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
A dictator or absolute monarch wouldn't, a constitutional monarch like our King certainly would
If Charles didn't allow protests or criticism @TSE would be in jail right now instead of on holiday.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
It's pretty obvious that Trump wants to backslide on democracy but the good news is it can't be done overnight. Just look at all the world leaders he admires. Authoritarian strongmen. If you can't see that you're deluded. I don't think 'tackling wokeness' justifies it.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
1. Royal Lodge is owned by the Crown Estate. It is not part of the royal family's personal property.
2. The Crown Estate is an independent corporation which manages a whole load of assets, including land and its profits go back to the Treasury. It's legal obligations are set out in 2 statutes - one in 1961 and one earlier this year.
4. Andrew has a lease on Royal Lodge. Under its terms, he had to pay (and has paid) £8.5 million for the repair of the property and his annual rent is a peppercorn one, though he has continuing obligations to keep the property in a good state of repair. Whether this agreement made good financial / property sense at the time, I cannot say but it would have been reviewed by the Crown Estate legal and property advisors and would, I assume, have had to be signed off by the relevant persons.
5. Whether it now makes sense for him and his ex to live in a house which is far larger than they need and given his personal behaviour and its effects on the working royals is another matter which is separate from whether the Crown Estate handled the decision about the use of this property and the money for it properly or well. It may well have been a sensible agreement at the time.
6. Regardless of Andrew's behaviour, there is something wrong about tearing up lawful contracts because we don't like particular individuals. The rule of law should mean something and there are far too many instances at the moment of all sorts of people and organisations who should know better taking the view that they should simply ignore any laws, judgments or contracts they do not like or which inconveniences them. This is a wrong. We should say so loudly and clearly not indulge this nonsense. It is very Trumpian behaviour and it is one of the many ironies that it is often done by people who claim to despise Trump or who think of themselves as "progressive".
7. Parliament had an opportunity to debate how the Crown Estate should operate when it passed the Crown Estate Act 2025. I wonder how many of the MPs now making a noise about Andrew took the opportunity to do this. It's not as if his difficulties were not known about.
TBC
8. If he leaves the lodge he will ask for, and perhaps get, a monetary settlement. This will look bad. As bad as having him stay? Who knows.
So:
1. He surrenders the lease for nil compensation 2. The King makes a gift from personal resources of, say £1m 3. The Civil List is increased next year by £1m (included in “other”) which is paid to the Duchy of Lancaster (“sundry expenses”)
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
It's pretty obvious that Trump wants to backslide on democracy but the good news is it can't be done overnight. Just look at all the world leaders he admires. Authoritarian strongmen. If you can't see that you're deluded. I don't think 'tackling wokeness' justifies it.
It's already in progress. Ice are pulling bUS citizens off the street, convicted felons are being pardoned, Comey, James and Bolton are already indicted and Schiff is next. The East Wing of the Whitehouse has been demolished without any scrutiny and rich donors have been railroaded into paying for the Epstein Wing. A private citizen is funding the War Department and in a snub to etiquette, Joe Biden's Whitehouse portrait has been replaced by a picture of an auto pen. This is not normal.
Stephen Miller is confident enough to say the quiet stuff out loud. "Plenary authority"?
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
It's pretty obvious that Trump wants to backslide on democracy but the good news is it can't be done overnight. Just look at all the world leaders he admires. Authoritarian strongmen. If you can't see that you're deluded. I don't think 'tackling wokeness' justifies it.
It's already in progress. Ice are pulling bUS citizens off the street, convicted felons are being pardoned, Comey, James and Bolton are already indicted and Schiff is next. The East Wing of the Whitehouse has been demolished without any scrutiny and rich donors have been railroaded into paying for the Epstein Wing. A private citizen is funding the War Department and in a snub to etiquette, Joe Biden's Whitehouse portrait has been replaced by a picture of an auto pen. This is not normal.
Stephen Miller is confident enough to say the quiet stuff out loud. "Plenary authority"?
And the House of Representatives never meets in case the Epstein files get to a vote.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
I agree. It is a distraction from Epstein.
Yes, if you’re a Democrat who thinks that Epstein is the most important issue on which they can nail the President, then having a go at Trump for building a ballroom does seem to be quite a distraction.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
No, they weren't. You're just forgetting (or are ignoring, deliberately or otherwise, or simply don't know) the history of the republic.
No kings has a very particular meaning in the US. The point is that Trump is setting himself up as one.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
...
You barely noticed that Higgins was President of Ireland for the last fourteen years, it's going to be of almost zero consequence that Connolly is President now.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
Higgins was the moral conscience of Ireland and wasn't afraid to call out atrocious behaviour by other countries. Connolly is likely to take a similar approach.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
I agree. It is a distraction from Epstein.
Yes, if you’re a Democrat who thinks that Epstein is the most important issue on which they can nail the President, then having a go at Trump for building a ballroom does seem to be quite a distraction.
Really ? Are you truly one those people who can only think of one thing at a time, and do happy to ignore any other shit that's going on ?
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
Private philanthropy for public good is a much more established tradition in the US (as it used to be here before 1945).
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
Good balanced header Foxy. Except of course for the ludicrous idea that the D'hondt method is anything other than the very worst form of electoral system. Anything based on proportionality between parties is just simply wrong from the very start.
If we hadn't got the D'Hondt regional list in Wales, careerists like Alun Cairns (on his first outing to the Senedd) would never have got that step up to Westminster and greater things.
BTW is it proper d'Hondt or Labour-and-LD-buggered d'Hondt in Wales as in Scotland? You know, supposed to make it impossible for any party to get a majority in the latter case.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
Isn't that just the Usonian equivalent of Crown Immunity? Edit: and modelled on it.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
a) Most Kings would let you protest against them these days. Generally they can't do anything about it, even if they wish. We can.
b) Context is everything. No Kings is a historical reference, as we are all aware. It represents their fight for democracy against George III and the fact that Trump is rolling back that change. Not to Charles obviously but to Trump himself.
c) It is a rather clever two words to express those feelings. It is not supposed to be analysed or taken literally. It is a complaint of Trump acting like or tending towards an old fashioned King or modern Dictator.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
Isn't that just the Usonian equivalent of Crown Immunity?
No - IIRC the group of buildings are specifically excluded from the laws and regulations. They are actually enumerated as exempt.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
Private philanthropy for public good is a much more established tradition in the US (as it used to be here before 1945).
“First,” Painter said in an email, “this is use of public office for private gain in violation of federal ethics rules.” He cited the Code of Federal Regulations, which says government employees “may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee.”
Painter also said the ballroom project raises a “problem under the Antideficiency Act.” The act “prohibits federal agencies from receiving voluntary services or other gifts from outside sources to ‘top off’ funds appropriated by Congress,” Painter explained.
“Of course the White House will argue that it is not an ‘agency’ subject to this law, but in the past the White House abided by this law. We did during the Bush Administration. The White House did not have authority to receive gifts,” he said.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the Antideficiency Act “requires agencies to generally stop their operations” during a government shutdown. “This protects Congress’s power over federal spending by preventing the executive branch from operating without funding. This act prohibits agencies from incurring obligations or making payments in advance or in excess of an appropriation.”
“Bottom line is,” the companies making donations for the ballroom construction “want something from the government and they are paying 1) for access to the President and other high ranking officials, and 2) Hoping it will buy them what they want. Many such as Lockheed Martin want big defense department contracts, so our now trillion dollar defense budget … will grow even more, all so we can save taxpayers $200 million building a ballroom the White House doesn’t need,” Painter said.
“Finally the ballroom will be used to entertain big campaign donors by this and future presidents, perpetuating White House pay to play,” he said...
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
Disproportionality rather depends upon what role is being played.
Take Nationwide for example, they currently have a campaign of an incompetent, out of touch head of a random bank and his long suffering but competent underling.
A minority individual has no chance of being cast as the incompetent banker, they have to settle for being the competent and overlooked underling.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
By that logic two thirds back her
63% of the valid votes cast were for Connolly. She has said quite clearly that she will respect the Constitutional limits on the Presidency, which means she represents continuity with Higgins - giving voice to the Irish consensus on neutrality and opposition to genocide and little else - but with superior ball control. Perhaps she will inspire the Irish soccer team.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
But the country is still majority English-speaking.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
Isn't that just the Usonian equivalent of Crown Immunity?
No - IIRC the group of buildings are specifically excluded from the laws and regulations. They are actually enumerated as exempt.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
There is certainly a lacuna in the laws which protect federal buildings, as far as the White House is concerned. And you're right that Trump is simply ignoring custom and practice - and the institutions set up to protect those buildings. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-26/how-the-trump-administration-demolished-the-white-house-east-wing ..There’s something Soviet about the notion of a building that is so historic, so singularly important, that no preservation effort could save it.
But it may not be just the East Wing that falls to the wrecking ball: The Trump administration has identified a number of historic buildings in Washington for disposal. And it has greatly diminished executive staff who deal with history. All but one of the presidentially appointed seats on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are vacant. Billie Tsien, the chair of the Commission of Fine Arts, has resigned. And in the early days of Trump’s second term, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency gutted the division of the GSA that performs Section 106 reviews and ensures that historic properties are maintained.
“The value of so many of the laws that were set up to protect our historic places is that they provide insight into what’s happening and what’s being proposed,” Bronin says. “This is a process that’s taken place in total darkness.”..
But the illegality goes beyond that, as noted above.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
Also the White House, like Buckingham Palace, isn’t some architectural glory so knocking down a basic wing and replacing it with another naff structure isn’t the worst bit of cultural vandalism.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
Comments
If you're going to emphasise candidates rather than parties, which I think is Richard's argument, then the current system is arguably as good as any - hence the profusion of kindependent MPs as party loyalty declines. But it produces results which don't closely represent what people really want. At present we have a Labour majority that is wildly in excess of the proportion of the population who actually support Labour. If a GE was held tomorrow, we'd probably get a result with Labour wildly underrepresented. Neither really makes sense in terms of reflecting what most people think.
‘ Hadush Kebatu has been arrested and will be deported.
Officers have worked quickly and diligently to bring him back into custody.
We have ordered an investigation to establish what went wrong. We must make sure this doesn't happen again.’
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1982392964640043076?s=61
Queen Camilla is even more unpopular with 18 to 24 year olds, just 16% have a favourable view of her and 58% unfavourable. Whereas 46% of 18 to 24 year olds have a favourable view of the Princess of Wales, only 17% unfavourable
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52737-royal-family-favourability-trackers-august-2025
The case in the news was supposed to be released into the custody of “British ICE” (I actually don’t know what they’re called, the police that manage deportations), but was instead just allowed to walk out of the gate a free man.
In practice is was pretty much impossible for the electorate to fire Hannan from the European Parliament, because of his position on the party list voting system.
That’s different than saying because of general overcrowding, people are being released on licence earlier than would usually be the case.
If you think Ms Connolly is crap over that many votes, just go on to draw a similar conclusion about your party.
Rogerdamus said he had no money. But then it seems, from what our Rog says, he was guilty of no more than a risqué joke 🤷♂️
If that’s the case then it clearly is not as bad as actual physical attacks.
Here is the summary of the offences (note plural) from the BBC report on his trial:
Kebatu attempted to kiss the [14 year old] girl and placed his hand on her thigh, before asking her to kiss another child as he watched, his trial heard.
He then groped another woman who had offered to help him with his paperwork.
Sorry if it was previously quoted. I spend some time here but not every waking minute,
No good deed goes unpunished !!
"NI parents caught in UK crackdown lose child benefit after travelling via Dublin
Exclusive: new anti-fraud system fails to account for fact many return to country via airport in Irish capital."
It will be no surprise to many here that HMRC have, apparently, managed to fail to take account of reality.
And they say integration is impossible
https://x.com/tom_slater_/status/1982389423708020886?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Presumably the prison authorities released him and said "get out of here".
And having parties choose their candidate order is a feature, not a bug. Having members vote in primaries to determine who gets 9n the list, and in what order would encourage engagement in local parties. If an MP is seen to be doing a poor job, they might go from number two on the list to number six next time and be out the door.
Give me d'Hondt any day!
Only time in my life I’ve been eight pints down at 10 O’Clock in the morning.
I have a real problem with left wing 'blokes'.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to replace Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor rather than still have Xi. If I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
A pub somewhere in Surbiton, don’t even remember what it was.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
It’s not about wings, right or left.
In this case it is about hierarchies.
Auteurs and various ethnic groups have higher value. To some people - who then complain about other people, who put white people first.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/09/17/government-pushes-back-at-higgins-comments-on-us-and-israels-un-participation/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-left-candidate-who-called-israel-terrorist-state-elected-president-of-ireland/
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Robert and I asked people to stop but they ignored us.
We did the same over the phone hacking saga.
1. He surrenders the lease for nil compensation
2. The King makes a gift from personal resources of, say £1m
3. The Civil List is increased next year by £1m (included in “other”) which is paid to the Duchy of Lancaster (“sundry expenses”)
Stephen Miller is confident enough to say the quiet stuff out loud. "Plenary authority"?
Powerful people and their lawyers eh?
By the way it's perfectly understandable that a site has to protect itself.
You're just forgetting (or are ignoring, deliberately or otherwise, or simply don't know) the history of the republic.
No kings has a very particular meaning in the US. The point is that Trump is setting himself up as one.
Are you truly one those people who can only think of one thing at a time, and do happy to ignore any other shit that's going on ?
It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1982417464802906424?s=61
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
I
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
b) Context is everything. No Kings is a historical reference, as we are all aware. It represents their fight for democracy against George III and the fact that Trump is rolling back that change. Not to Charles obviously but to Trump himself.
c) It is a rather clever two words to express those feelings. It is not supposed to be analysed or taken literally. It is a complaint of Trump acting like or tending towards an old fashioned King or modern Dictator.
In any event, the legal problems go some way beyond that.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/10/trumps-white-house-ballroom-sparks-questions-about-funding-and-ethics/
..Richard W. Painter, a professor at Minnesota Law who served as the chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office under President George W. Bush, told us that Trump’s ballroom fundraising crosses several ethical lines.
“First,” Painter said in an email, “this is use of public office for private gain in violation of federal ethics rules.” He cited the Code of Federal Regulations, which says government employees “may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee.”
Painter also said the ballroom project raises a “problem under the Antideficiency Act.” The act “prohibits federal agencies from receiving voluntary services or other gifts from outside sources to ‘top off’ funds appropriated by Congress,” Painter explained.
“Of course the White House will argue that it is not an ‘agency’ subject to this law, but in the past the White House abided by this law. We did during the Bush Administration. The White House did not have authority to receive gifts,” he said.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the Antideficiency Act “requires agencies to generally stop their operations” during a government shutdown. “This protects Congress’s power over federal spending by preventing the executive branch from operating without funding. This act prohibits agencies from incurring obligations or making payments in advance or in excess of an appropriation.”
“Bottom line is,” the companies making donations for the ballroom construction “want something from the government and they are paying 1) for access to the President and other high ranking officials, and 2) Hoping it will buy them what they want. Many such as Lockheed Martin want big defense department contracts, so our now trillion dollar defense budget … will grow even more, all so we can save taxpayers $200 million building a ballroom the White House doesn’t need,” Painter said.
“Finally the ballroom will be used to entertain big campaign donors by this and future presidents, perpetuating White House pay to play,” he said...
Take Nationwide for example, they currently have a campaign of an incompetent, out of touch head of a random bank and his long suffering but competent underling.
A minority individual has no chance of being cast as the incompetent banker, they have to settle for being the competent and overlooked underling.
And you're right that Trump is simply ignoring custom and practice - and the institutions set up to protect those buildings.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-26/how-the-trump-administration-demolished-the-white-house-east-wing
..There’s something Soviet about the notion of a building that is so historic, so singularly important, that no preservation effort could save it.
But it may not be just the East Wing that falls to the wrecking ball: The Trump administration has identified a number of historic buildings in Washington for disposal. And it has greatly diminished executive staff who deal with history. All but one of the presidentially appointed seats on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are vacant. Billie Tsien, the chair of the Commission of Fine Arts, has resigned. And in the early days of Trump’s second term, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency gutted the division of the GSA that performs Section 106 reviews and ensures that historic properties are maintained.
“The value of so many of the laws that were set up to protect our historic places is that they provide insight into what’s happening and what’s being proposed,” Bronin says. “This is a process that’s taken place in total darkness.”..
But the illegality goes beyond that, as noted above.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.