Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy – politicalbetting.com

System · 2:21PM

Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy – politicalbetting.com

? Given the future of the monarchy is back on the agenda. What do the public think? 47% oppose abolition 29% back it. Tory and Reform voters are most opposed. Green voters most likely to be in favour of abolition.

Read the full story here

Carnyx · 2:22PM

First unlike James VI.

FrancisUrquhart · 2:23PM

Your joking...not another one...

An asylum seeker who "calmly" walked into a bank and stabbed a man inside to death without provocation or motive has been jailed for life.

Haybe Cabdiraxmaan Nur stabbed Gurvinder Johal, 37, through the heart in an attack caught on CCTV at a Lloyds Bank branch in St Peter's Street, Derby, just after 14:30 BST on 6 May.

Mr Johal's family said Nur - who Derby Crown Court heard arrived on small boat in the UK after spending a few years in Europe. The court heard Nur, who arrived in the UK in October 2024, had previously spent time in Italy, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

https://bbc.com/news/articles/clyld1p0lw1o

The court heard that Nur had previously been arrested in the UK for violence and public order offences in December 2024, when he was heard shouting 'f*** the English' and 'white racist b*******' while trying to run into traffic. On that occasion, he was said to have headbutted a construction worker, but no charges were brought against him. But Mr Mably said that the defendant was also known to the police in four European countries – France, Luxembourg, Italy and Germany – in the years before he arrived in the UK, after being arrested for a variety of offences.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15238193/Channel-migrant-known-police-FOUR-countries-arrested-shouting-f-English-murdered-restaurant-owner-random-high-street-bank-asylum-application-rejected.html

MattW · 2:27PM

FPT:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:
This stuff is just stupid economic self harm.

Today in UK planning law ruins everything:

NHS patients waiting for surgery in Lincolnshire could face a further one year delay for a new surgical centre, as the developers have to prove that they are providing "integrated bat bricks" and "provisions for hedgehogs to pass"
https://x.com/dc_lawrence/status/1983173907294122432
Why does that take a year? Should take less than a day to sort the bat bricks.

I see no evidence of there being any truth in the claim - where's the delay and the plans on hold? Lawrence got it from a YIMBY feed, and the planning condition says that plans for the hedgehog routes through fences etc must be provided WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF COMMENCEMENT. I'm inclined to call BS.

Wearing my cynical head, I'd say someone is trying to stir up the Mail and Telegraph about helping nature. I have not traced the rabbit hole completely, so open to correction from anyone who does so.
David Lawrence @dc_lawrence Oct 28
However, the plans have been put on hold as the council waits for a "biodiversity enhancement plan" including details of integrated bat bricks, nesting sites, "areas to support reptiles" and routes for hedgehogs.

https://x.com/dc_lawrence/status/1983173916475699647

HYUFD · 2:28PM

After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise. Not much mention of the fact Andrew is not even in the top 5 in line to the throne either or that Presidents Trump and ex President Clinton in US republic met Andrew unlike the King or William.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn such that we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.

Massive 71% approval rating for Prince William, just 8% negative and clear approval for the Princess of Wales too, both of whom have higher approval ratings than the King, Queen Consort and royal family overall. So when William becomes King the monarchy likely gets a bounce overall and with the young especially

FrancisUrquhart · 2:31PM

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.

What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize some terrible behaviour.

The obsession isn't JUST he did this one thing, it is the girl at the time was being trafficked, that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it. And we keep finding out more and more.

Carnyx · 2:31PM

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.

Er, given your normal practice you have to count the Don't Knows as being against. So a negative for the monarchy. You can't just change your mind on basic things like that to suit yourself, or anyone else.

HYUFD · 2:33PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.

The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit

FrancisUrquhart · 2:33PM

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.
The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit

Now you are just projecting. And wrongly.

I am as critical of the media as anybody on here. But Andrew has repeatedly lied about his connections to this individual, it is to be expected that they will report upon this, particularly given the high profile nature of his relationship with his individual who was not only sex trafficer, but suspicisions that is motivations might well have been more than just been provider of under aged girls for noncing.

Its also not 100% certain he hasn't broken the law. The police are investigating him.

HYUFD · 2:34PM

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
Er, given your normal practice you have to count the Don't Knows as being against. So a negative for the monarchy. You can't just change your mind on basic things like that to suit yourself, or anyone else.

No, DKs largely go to the status quo in the end normally

LostPassword · 2:37PM

Although I think a monarchy is a very silly idea, I struggle to generate much interest in going to the trouble of getting rid of it. It's one thing to go through the daft pageantry of an Accession Council for a new Monarch, forcing a recently bereaved individual to endure a series of archaic rituals, but the mortifying cringe factor of having such rituals for a President would be silly in its own way.

I would have thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession though, even if he is only something like eighth now.

Sandpit · 2:38PM

FrancisUrquhart said:
Your joking...not another one...

An asylum seeker who "calmly" walked into a bank and stabbed a man inside to death without provocation or motive has been jailed for life.

Haybe Cabdiraxmaan Nur stabbed Gurvinder Johal, 37, through the heart in an attack caught on CCTV at a Lloyds Bank branch in St Peter's Street, Derby, just after 14:30 BST on 6 May.

Mr Johal's family said Nur - who Derby Crown Court heard arrived on small boat in the UK after spending a few years in Europe. The court heard Nur, who arrived in the UK in October 2024, had previously spent time in Italy, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

https://bbc.com/news/articles/clyld1p0lw1o

The court heard that Nur had previously been arrested in the UK for violence and public order offences in December 2024, when he was heard shouting 'f*** the English' and 'white racist b*******' while trying to run into traffic. On that occasion, he was said to have headbutted a construction worker, but no charges were brought against him. But Mr Mably said that the defendant was also known to the police in four European countries – France, Luxembourg, Italy and Germany – in the years before he arrived in the UK, after being arrested for a variety of offences.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15238193/Channel-migrant-known-police-FOUR-countries-arrested-shouting-f-English-murdered-restaurant-owner-random-high-street-bank-asylum-application-rejected.html

At what point does it become easier and cheaper to build a camp on Ascension Island?

Or do we see Farage as a moderate elected in 2029, alongside a load of the “Tommy” supporters?

Malmesbury · 2:39PM

LostPassword said:
Although I think a monarchy is a very silly idea, I struggle to generate much interest in going to the trouble of getting rid of it. It's one thing to go through the daft pageantry of an Accession Council for a new Monarch, forcing a recently bereaved individual to endure a series of archaic rituals, but the mortifying cringe factor of having such rituals for a President would be silly in its own way.

I would have thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession though, even if he is only something like eighth now.

Re succession - Legally, that’s up to the government. They could do that in 10 minutes.

MattW · 2:39PM

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise. Not much mention of the fact Andrew is not even in the top 5 in line to the throne either or that Presidents Trump and ex President Clinton in US republic met Andrew unlike the King or William.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn such that we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.

Massive 71% approval rating for Prince William, just 8% negative and clear approval for the Princess of Wales too, both of whom have higher approval ratings than the King, Queen Consort and royal family overall. So when William becomes King the monarchy likely gets a bounce overall and with the young especially

It will cost a pretty penny to buy out 40? 50? years of peppercorn rent on that property.

viewcode · 2:40PM

The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"

LostPassword · 2:41PM

Malmesbury said:

LostPassword said:
Although I think a monarchy is a very silly idea, I struggle to generate much interest in going to the trouble of getting rid of it. It's one thing to go through the daft pageantry of an Accession Council for a new Monarch, forcing a recently bereaved individual to endure a series of archaic rituals, but the mortifying cringe factor of having such rituals for a President would be silly in its own way.

I would have thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession though, even if he is only something like eighth now.
Re succession - Legally, that’s up to the government. They could do that in 10 minutes.

Does it not require an Act of Parliament, and in each of the Commonwealth Realms?

numbertwelve · 2:41PM

I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.

LostPassword · 2:42PM

viewcode said:
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"

Lies, damned lies, and TSE's thread titles.

Sandpit · 2:42PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.
The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit
Now you are just projecting. And wrongly.

I am as critical of the media as anybody on here. But Andrew has repeatedly lied about his connections to this individual, it is to be expected that they will report upon this, particularly given the high profile nature of his relationship with his individual who was not only sex trafficer, but suspicisions that is motivations might well have been more than just been provider of under aged girls for noncing.

Its also not 100% certain he hasn't broken the law. The police are investigating him.

Anyone who was associated with Epstein after his 2008 conviction deserves to be ostracised.

Andrew is definitely in that group, as are a lot of well-known Americans, at least one of whom was divorced by his wife over the relationship.

TheScreamingEagles · 2:42PM

viewcode said:
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"

The headline is epistemologically correct.

bondegezou · 2:43PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize some terrible behaviour.

The obsession isn't JUST he did this one thing, it is the girl at the time was being trafficked, that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it. And we keep finding out more and more.

And the girl said she saw Andrew having sex with girls who were under 16 on Epstein's island.

FrancisUrquhart · 2:44PM

numbertwelve said:
I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.

It is very much my opinion. And tourism / culture. Also we don't pay for anywhere near the level of hangers on that we used to be in the past. Most have to earn their own way these days. One of the changes Obsorne made is that even at the highest levels the royals are much more incentised to make money a chunk of which goes back into the public coffers that in turn is used to pay for their grants.

I think what would have happened if we got rid a few years ago and who we could have had as president and look at the nutter the Irish have just elected, particularly the Queen seems a far less bad option.

bondegezou · 2:45PM

Malmesbury said:

LostPassword said:
Although I think a monarchy is a very silly idea, I struggle to generate much interest in going to the trouble of getting rid of it. It's one thing to go through the daft pageantry of an Accession Council for a new Monarch, forcing a recently bereaved individual to endure a series of archaic rituals, but the mortifying cringe factor of having such rituals for a President would be silly in its own way.

I would have thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession though, even if he is only something like eighth now.
Re succession - Legally, that’s up to the government. They could do that in 10 minutes.

Legally, isn't up to Parliament, rather than the government? So, it would take a day, rather than 10 minutes.

LostPassword · 2:46PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:
I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.
It is very much my opinion. And tourism / culture. Also we don't pay for anywhere near the level of hangers on that we used to be in the past. Most have to earn their own way these days.

I think what would have happened if we got rid a few years ago and who we could have had as president and look at the nutter the Irish have just elected, particularly the Queen seems a far less bad option.

Perhaps Britain would be better off with Corbyn as President and no longer an MP in the Commons?

Sandpit · 2:47PM

numbertwelve said:
I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.

The monarchy has generally held up well, with the problem children being the spares rather than the heirs in the last couple of generations.

Better to tell Mr York and Mr Sussex to sort their own lives out, but let them live in the castle if the alternative is having them out there causing mischief.

Andy_JS · 2:49PM

Did we need a poll to tell us that Prince Andrew is uniquely unpopular?

FF43 · 2:50PM

viewcode said:
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"

Depends what point you're trying to make. If it's to indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy, the title is accurate - most people at best don't care or actively want to get rid of it.

Casino_Royale · 2:50PM

King William V looks safe then.

LostPassword · 2:54PM

Casino_Royale said:
King William V looks safe then.

The best hope for Republicans is that the William and Kate kids grow up well-adjusted enough to realise that they don't want to be part of the circus and abdicate when they reach adulthood.

numbertwelve · 2:55PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:
I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.
It is very much my opinion. And tourism / culture. Also we don't pay for anywhere near the level of hangers on that we used to be in the past. Most have to earn their own way these days. One of the changes Obsorne made is that even at the highest levels the royals are much more incentised to make money a chunk of which goes back into the public coffers that in turn is used to pay for their grants.

I think what would have happened if we got rid a few years ago and who we could have had as president and look at the nutter the Irish have just elected, particularly the Queen seems a far less bad option.

The other thing in its favour is the soft power it generates.

I don’t think it can be denied that the former Queen was a superstar on the international stage. This gave Britain a uniquely powerful asset - leaders wanted to meet her, and she was held in the kind of universal high respect very few figures in history have been.

Even Charles, nowhere near as well-liked or charismatic, appears to have the ability to convene and to entertain/flatter very well.

Andy_JS · 2:56PM

LostPassword said:
Although I think a monarchy is a very silly idea, I struggle to generate much interest in going to the trouble of getting rid of it. It's one thing to go through the daft pageantry of an Accession Council for a new Monarch, forcing a recently bereaved individual to endure a series of archaic rituals, but the mortifying cringe factor of having such rituals for a President would be silly in its own way.

I would have thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession though, even if he is only something like eighth now.

It's a silly idea that seems to work. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are monarchies: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, UK. And the most prosperous and stable country in the far-east, Thailand, is one of the few monarchies in that area.

FrancisUrquhart · 2:56PM

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:
I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.
It is very much my opinion. And tourism / culture. Also we don't pay for anywhere near the level of hangers on that we used to be in the past. Most have to earn their own way these days. One of the changes Obsorne made is that even at the highest levels the royals are much more incentised to make money a chunk of which goes back into the public coffers that in turn is used to pay for their grants.

I think what would have happened if we got rid a few years ago and who we could have had as president and look at the nutter the Irish have just elected, particularly the Queen seems a far less bad option.
The other thing in its favour is the soft power it generates.

I don’t think it can be denied that the former Queen was a superstar on the international stage. This gave Britain a uniquely powerful asset - leaders wanted to meet her, and she was held in the kind of universal high respect very few figures in history have been.

Even Charles, nowhere near as well-liked or charismatic, appears to have the ability to convene and to entertain/flatter very well.

Starmer waving his Willy Wonkly golden ticket to have dinner with King Charles to Trump....

Sandpit · 2:59PM

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:
King William V looks safe then.
The best hope for Republicans is that the William and Kate kids grow up well-adjusted enough to realise that they don't want to be part of the circus and abdicate when they reach adulthood.

So long as Harry and his “children” are also formally out of the line, that might work for the Republicans.

Still can’t see it happening though, we saw the debate in Australia a couple of decades back, where the question was easily turned from “Should we replace the monarchy?” To “With what contritutional arrangement should we replace the monarchy, or do we just stick with it?” See also the endless debate of House of Lords reform.

Theuniondivvie · 2:59PM

FF43 said:

viewcode said:
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"
Depends what point you're trying to make. If it's to indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy, the title is accurate - most people at best don't care or actively want to get rid of it.

Indifference is what the monarchy most fears. Once most of the populace doesn’t give a fig for the mystique of someone who fantasised about being a tampon anointed by God to rule over us, it’s over.

JohnLilburne · 3:07PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize some terrible behaviour.

The obsession isn't JUST he did this one thing, it is the girl at the time was being trafficked, that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it. And we keep finding out more and more.

She was also paid, so there would be a case for an underage prostitution charge, assuming that was the law back then

Battlebus · 3:07PM

Isn't Charles both King and Supreme Governor (of the CoE)? If he loses one title, will it affect the other. Or alternatively will the CoE no longer be the State Church?

[Insert Father Jack joke here]

viewcode · 3:08PM

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"
The headline is epistemologically correct.

You can get ointment for that

Richard_Tyndall · 3:09PM

"The long term future of the monarchy is in doubt thanks to the young and Green voters."

Hahaha. If you genuinely believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.

JohnLilburne · 3:10PM

Andy_JS said:

LostPassword said:
Although I think a monarchy is a very silly idea, I struggle to generate much interest in going to the trouble of getting rid of it. It's one thing to go through the daft pageantry of an Accession Council for a new Monarch, forcing a recently bereaved individual to endure a series of archaic rituals, but the mortifying cringe factor of having such rituals for a President would be silly in its own way.

I would have thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession though, even if he is only something like eighth now.
It's a silly idea that seems to work. Some of the best countries in the world to live in are monarchies: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, UK. And the most prosperous and stable country in the far-east, Thailand, is one of the few monarchies in that area.

Thailand isn't that unusual. Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei, Papua New Guinea and Japan are all monarchies

Richard_Tyndall · 3:13PM

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:
King William V looks safe then.
The best hope for Republicans is that the William and Kate kids grow up well-adjusted enough to realise that they don't want to be part of the circus and abdicate when they reach adulthood.
So long as Harry and his “children” are also formally out of the line, that might work for the Republicans.

Still can’t see it happening though, we saw the debate in Australia a couple of decades back, where the question was easily turned from “Should we replace the monarchy?” To “With what contritutional arrangement should we replace the monarchy, or do we just stick with it?” See also the endless debate of House of Lords reform.

Indeed Australia seem to be rolling back from the push for a Republic. As evidenced by Albanese's recent comments.

BlancheLivermore · 3:13PM

England's top order batted like birds..

Nos 1, 2 and 3 all ducks

Now BBC headline - England facing World Cup semi-final heartbreak

Heartbreak? FFS..

Andy_JS · 3:15PM

"Disgraced Juan Carlos praises ‘tender’ Franco for making him king" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/juan-carlos-king-spain-franco-jvcxhhvqq

rcs1000 · 3:15PM

If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.

rcs1000 · 3:17PM

@StillWaters

From two threads ago, on the subject of Daylight Savings Time, I would point out that some parts of Arizona observe daylights savings time, while others do not.

It results in some interestingly creative attempts to commit insurance fraud.

Sandpit · 3:18PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:
I support the monarchy as the least worst option.

I have very little desire to roll the dice on throwing it out and instituting a presidential system that I strongly suspect would be more flawed.
It is very much my opinion. And tourism / culture. Also we don't pay for anywhere near the level of hangers on that we used to be in the past. Most have to earn their own way these days. One of the changes Obsorne made is that even at the highest levels the royals are much more incentised to make money a chunk of which goes back into the public coffers that in turn is used to pay for their grants.

I think what would have happened if we got rid a few years ago and who we could have had as president and look at the nutter the Irish have just elected, particularly the Queen seems a far less bad option.
The other thing in its favour is the soft power it generates.

I don’t think it can be denied that the former Queen was a superstar on the international stage. This gave Britain a uniquely powerful asset - leaders wanted to meet her, and she was held in the kind of universal high respect very few figures in history have been.

Even Charles, nowhere near as well-liked or charismatic, appears to have the ability to convene and to entertain/flatter very well.
Starmer waving his Willy Wonkly golden ticket to have dinner with King Charles to Trump....

It’s like Britannia, which in her ‘80s heyday would show up in New York or Hong Kong and be the impossible ticket to get in town.

Even if you only got to meet (a slightly less controversial) Andy and the ambassador, the invitiations would end up framed in the offices of those lucky enough to get them.

Richard_Tyndall · 3:19PM

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.
The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit

No. The 'obsession' as you call it, is from across the political devide on this. Republicans and Royalists alike. If they have any sense then those who support or admire an institution are as critical, or often more critical of individuals who bring it into disrepute.

boulay · 3:20PM

Boulay’s plans for the afterlife starting to look more positive.

“Priest who sold his soul to Satan becomes the Catholic Church's newest saint”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15238787/Priest-Satan-Catholic-Church-newest-saint.html

turbotubbs · 3:20PM

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.

I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).

Andy_JS · 3:21PM

BlancheLivermore said:
England's top order batted like birds..

Nos 1, 2 and 3 all ducks

Now BBC headline - England facing World Cup semi-final heartbreak

Heartbreak? FFS..

I'm heartbroken because I had a bet on them winning the match.

Sandpit · 3:28PM

https://x.com/simoncalder/status/1983546867645624743

TUI positioning empty planes to the Carribean, to evacuate tourists from Jamaica as soon as the runways reopen.

Hopefully not totally empty, and carrying emergency supplies that the Jamaicans might need in the coming days.

LostPassword · 3:29PM

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).

I tend to think that one of the stronger arguments against the monarchy is that it's cruel to members of the Royal Family. The position of spare to the heir is a particular head-fuck, though hanging around seven decades to do the job you were born to must also be psychologically interesting. And then everyone celebrates the anniversary of the day your Mom/Dad died as your Accession day.

Andy_JS · 3:29PM

Labour are sinking in the polls. 5 of the last 10 have had them below 20%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2025

bondegezou · 3:32PM

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).

Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.

Jim_Miller · 3:34PM

FPT: Election day here in Washington state is next Tuesday. Which means that ballots must be postmarked by that day, to be counted. Since it is an odd-numbered year, I like to think of it as an off-off-year election. But there are a few interesting races, even so.

Yesterday, something happened that I can not recall ever happening to me before. As I was walking by the local library, I encountered three East Asians, trying to figure out what to do with a ballot. There are four possibiliities: put the ballot in the outgoing section of your mail box (if it is a new one, or put the flag up if it is an old one), take it to a box at city hall, put it in a mailbox on a street somewhere, or take it to the local post office. (I prefer the last.) I'm not sure which one they were looking for.

The library opens at noon on Tuesdays, and it was about 11 in the morning, so what I should have done was taken the three to the post office, which is less than a 10 minute walk from the library. But I was carrying a heavy bag of groceries, so I just pointed them in the general direction. (Yes, the extra exercise would have done me good.)

And now I have to fill out my own ballot, which I will take to the post office tomorrow morning.

(It is possible to vote in person in Washington state. As I recall, each county is required to have one place open for those who prefer voting in person, or need assistance. Not many do it, especially in the counties with larger populations. Oh, and you can register to vote on election day, which would require going to one of those centers.)

Sean_F · 3:35PM

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise. Not much mention of the fact Andrew is not even in the top 5 in line to the throne either or that Presidents Trump and ex President Clinton in US republic met Andrew unlike the King or William.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn such that we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.

Massive 71% approval rating for Prince William, just 8% negative and clear approval for the Princess of Wales too, both of whom have higher approval ratings than the King, Queen Consort and royal family overall. So when William becomes King the monarchy likely gets a bounce overall and with the young especially

There is a prima facie case that an offence was committed under both the local State law, and under its UK equivalent. Andrew has paid out £12m to settle a claim from a woman that he claims he never met. Yeah, right.

However, there is no proposal that Andrew be deprived of his liberty. The proposal is that he be deprived of his honours.

There is ample evidence that his conduct is dishonourable in the extreme, and that is calculated to bring to the Royal Family into disrepute. He should therefore be stripped of his titles.

turbotubbs · 3:35PM

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.

Thats a private business, not paid for by taxation. Same way I don't object to people inheriting houses etc. But thats different to the royal family. I'm expected to call Charles 'Your Royal Highness" simply because of whose vagina he emerged from.

Stuartinromford · 3:36PM

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).

Head of State is a weird one, though. Staple it to a role with real power, and you end up with an executive President, and they can't be above the political fray and that doesn't seem nice at all. (Points a few thousand miles west at an example). Make it a poweless figurehead (or one whose only power is to imply "don't embarass me in front of the country" with a hard stare when presented with a bad idea) and you have to wonder whether anyone who wanted the role should be barred on general principle.

Presumably we can't just not have a Head of State. Inheritance of a silly role seems no worse than any other plan. (Though I think Harry did exactly the right thing in bailing out once his spareness was obvious.)

Sean_F · 3:36PM

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).

I don't know about that. Thousands of rich people give their children positions and privileges, based upon birth.

FrancisUrquhart · 3:40PM

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.

Putting aside private business, looking at his CV, I don't think he is there only because he married into the family i.e. He isn't the equivalent of Harry in the royal family. He has pretty impressive education, roles outside of Walmart (including prior to joining) and then also worked across the company before getting the top job. Walmart founder had plenty of other family member options to hand the role onto.

bondegezou · 3:41PM

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Thats a private business, not paid for by taxation. Same way I don't object to people inheriting houses etc. But thats different to the royal family. I'm expected to call Charles 'Your Royal Highness" simply because of whose vagina he emerged from.

You are not required to call Charles "Your Royal Highness". It's a custom, but you won't be arrested if you call him Mr Windsor.

(#pbpedantry It's not about the vagina he transited. If he'd been born by Caesarean section, he'd still be King. If the Queen's egg had been mixed with Prince Charles' sperm in a petri dish and then the resulting early embryo implanted in a surrogate's womb, he'd still be King, I guess?)

carnforth · 3:41PM

Sean_F said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
I don't know about that. Thousands of rich people give their children positions and privileges, based upon birth.

Plus their good (or otherwise) looks.

ManOfGwent · 3:42PM

Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.

bondegezou · 3:45PM

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Putting aside private business, looking at his CV, I don't think he is there only because he married into the family i.e. He isn't the equivalent of Harry in the royal family. He has pretty impressive education, roles outside of Walmart (including prior to joining) and then also worked across the company before getting the top job.

OK, pick John Franklyn Mars, chairman of Mars, and son of Audrey Ruth (Meyer) and Forrest Mars Sr., and grandson of Franklin Clarence Mars, founders of Mars.

viewcode · 3:48PM

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Thats a private business, not paid for by taxation. Same way I don't object to people inheriting houses etc. But thats different to the royal family. I'm expected to call Charles 'Your Royal Highness" simply because of whose vagina he emerged from.
You are not required to call Charles "Your Royal Highness". It's a custom, but you won't be arrested if you call him Mr Windsor.

(#pbpedantry It's not about the vagina he transited. If he'd been born by Caesarean section, he'd still be King. If the Queen's egg had been mixed with Prince Charles' sperm in a petri dish and then the resulting early embryo implanted in a surrogate's womb, he'd still be King, I guess?)

Um, Charles was "Your Royal Highness" when he was Prince of Wales. Now he is King Charles III he is "Your Majesty". The Government is "HMG", *not* "HRHG"

Sean_F · 3:49PM

What the Royal Family really needs is someone like Tom Hagen, explaining to Andrew what he needs to do, like Frank Pentangile.

FrancisUrquhart · 3:54PM

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Putting aside private business, looking at his CV, I don't think he is there only because he married into the family i.e. He isn't the equivalent of Harry in the royal family. He has pretty impressive education, roles outside of Walmart (including prior to joining) and then also worked across the company before getting the top job.
OK, pick John Franklyn Mars, chairman of Mars, and son of Audrey Ruth (Meyer) and Forrest Mars Sr., and grandson of Franklin Clarence Mars, founders of Mars.

Back in the day they had the right idea. Mars Jnr came up with new innovations for the company (including best candy bar ever, 3 Mustekteers Bar) and Mars Snr, went well done son, now bugger off to Europe and set up a new separate company over there.

Its not new news that most family companies don't last past 4 generations because the offspring don't have the drive, the passion and / or business acumen to carry on their forefathers success. In the Walmart example it appears like the successor is doing a very good job, they have been very successful transitioning to much more e-commerce focused business and taken a good chunk of Amazon marketshare in the US.

viewcode · 3:55PM

Sean_F said:
What the Royal Family really needs is someone like Tom Hagen, explaining to Andrew what he needs to do, like Frank Pentangile.

"Leave the crown. Take the cannoli"

Stuartinromford · 3:56PM

Sean_F said:
What the Royal Family really needs is someone like Tom Hagen, explaining to Andrew what he needs to do, like Frank Pentangile.

What Andrew needs to do ought to be obvious to anyone with the intellectual calibre of Winnie the Pooh.

Which is the problem.

turbotubbs · 3:57PM

Sean_F said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
I don't know about that. Thousands of rich people give their children positions and privileges, based upon birth.

That I do not contribute to via taxation, nor do I need to fawn over.

HYUFD · 3:57PM

ManOfGwent said:
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.

Yes, it is Charles III or bust for republicans. He is less popular than his mother was and his son and Camilla, Queen Consort is far less popular then the Duke of Edinburgh was or Princess of Wales is.

So it is hardly surprising republicans are pushing the Andrew affair so hard to attack the King, as they know William is much tougher on Andrew than his father and was the one who pushed for his titles to go as well as being more popular.

Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage

Foss · 3:57PM

..

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Putting aside private business, looking at his CV, I don't think he is there only because he married into the family i.e. He isn't the equivalent of Harry in the royal family. He has pretty impressive education, roles outside of Walmart (including prior to joining) and then also worked across the company before getting the top job.
OK, pick John Franklyn Mars, chairman of Mars, and son of Audrey Ruth (Meyer) and Forrest Mars Sr., and grandson of Franklin Clarence Mars, founders of Mars.
Back in the day they had the right idea. Mars Jnr came up with new innovations for the company (including best candy bar ever, 3 Mustekteers Bar) and Mars Snr, went well done son, now bugger off to Europe and set up a new separate company over there.

We could develop a small but lucrative sideline in selling monarchs to countries who shot their own and now have executor's remorse.

HYUFD · 3:59PM

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
I tend to think that one of the stronger arguments against the monarchy is that it's cruel to members of the Royal Family. The position of spare to the heir is a particular head-fuck, though hanging around seven decades to do the job you were born to must also be psychologically interesting. And then everyone celebrates the anniversary of the day your Mom/Dad died as your Accession day.

It isn't cruel, you are anointed by God to be monarch on the day you are born and trained for it from then, you get lots of perks too, a Palace or two, motorcades, cooks, lots of travel etc

HYUFD · 3:59PM

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

HYUFD said:
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.

However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.

Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.
The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit
No. The 'obsession' as you call it, is from across the political devide on this. Republicans and Royalists alike. If they have any sense then those who support or admire an institution are as critical, or often more critical of individuals who bring it into disrepute.

Still no proof he did anything criminal

BlancheLivermore · 3:59PM

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Thats a private business, not paid for by taxation. Same way I don't object to people inheriting houses etc. But thats different to the royal family. I'm expected to call Charles 'Your Royal Highness" simply because of whose vagina he emerged from.
You are not required to call Charles "Your Royal Highness". It's a custom, but you won't be arrested if you call him Mr Windsor.

(#pbpedantry It's not about the vagina he transited. If he'd been born by Caesarean section, he'd still be King. If the Queen's egg had been mixed with Prince Charles' sperm in a petri dish and then the resulting early embryo implanted in a surrogate's womb, he'd still be King, I guess?)

I do hope you mean Phil's sperm..

Andy_JS · 4:00PM

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).

There's quite a lot of evidence that people get more irritated by merit-based achievement than they do by the random nature of inheritance. Merit-based achievement shows them up, whereas with inheritance it's a case of "this could have happened to anyone, including me".

turbotubbs · 4:01PM

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Thats a private business, not paid for by taxation. Same way I don't object to people inheriting houses etc. But thats different to the royal family. I'm expected to call Charles 'Your Royal Highness" simply because of whose vagina he emerged from.
You are not required to call Charles "Your Royal Highness". It's a custom, but you won't be arrested if you call him Mr Windsor.

(#pbpedantry It's not about the vagina he transited. If he'd been born by Caesarean section, he'd still be King. If the Queen's egg had been mixed with Prince Charles' sperm in a petri dish and then the resulting early embryo implanted in a surrogate's womb, he'd still be King, I guess?)

#greatpedantry - I was being too clever...

And no I won't be arrested, but his position in society etc is down to his birth.

LostPassword · 4:01PM

HYUFD said:

ManOfGwent said:
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
Yes, it is Charles III or bust for republicans. He is less popular than his mother was and his son and Camilla, Queen Consort is far less popular then the Duke of Edinburgh or Princess of Wales are.

So it is hardly surprising republicans are pushing the Andrew affair so hard to attack the King, as they know William is much tougher on Andrew than his father and was the one who pushed for his titles to go as well as being more popular.

Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage

You think KCIII will abdicate? Or you think there should be compulsory retirement for Monarchs at age 90-ish?

Carnyx · 4:01PM

Foss said:
..
FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

turbotubbs said:

rcs1000 said:
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.

But we're not.

And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.

So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Putting aside private business, looking at his CV, I don't think he is there only because he married into the family i.e. He isn't the equivalent of Harry in the royal family. He has pretty impressive education, roles outside of Walmart (including prior to joining) and then also worked across the company before getting the top job.
OK, pick John Franklyn Mars, chairman of Mars, and son of Audrey Ruth (Meyer) and Forrest Mars Sr., and grandson of Franklin Clarence Mars, founders of Mars.
Back in the day they had the right idea. Mars Jnr came up with new innovations for the company (including best candy bar ever, 3 Mustekteers Bar) and Mars Snr, went well done son, now bugger off to Europe and set up a new separate company over there.
We could develop a small but lucrative sideline in selling monarchs to countries who shot their own and now have executor's remorse.

Yes, sorting out probate and working out IHT is such a pain when it comes to monarchs.

Andy_JS · 4:03PM

Only 154 MPs vote in favour of the ECHR? Not much of a vote of confidence.

"MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR
The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news

MattW · 4:04PM

TheScreamingEagles said:

viewcode said:
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"
The headline is epistemologically correct.

This full stop is upside down -----------------^ .

MattW · 4:05PM

Don't be a disabled pedestrian in Clearfield, Utah.

https://youtu.be/S2uw0ZN_vn4?t=244

(Subsidiary question: how to you cross a sideroad with no crosswalk without committing the offence of jaywalking? Can pedestrians fly in the USA?)

(Thrown at me by the algorithm. I find the perverse incentive to drink and drive bizarre.)

numbertwelve · 4:06PM

HYUFD said:

ManOfGwent said:
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
Yes, it is Charles III or bust for republicans. He is less popular than his mother was and his son and Camilla, Queen Consort is far less popular then the Duke of Edinburgh was or Princess of Wales is.

So it is hardly surprising republicans are pushing the Andrew affair so hard to attack the King, as they know William is much tougher on Andrew than his father and was the one who pushed for his titles to go as well as being more popular.

Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage

Without wishing ill on the man (because I don’t), it feels to me rather optimistic that he’ll have another decade at the helm..

bondegezou · 4:07PM

What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."

bondegezou · 4:08PM

Andy_JS said:
Only 154 MPs vote in favour of the ECHR? Not much of a vote of confidence.

"MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR
The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news

Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?

CatMan · 4:08PM

bondegezou said:
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."

Family Guy Meme incoming...

Andy_JS · 4:11PM

MattW said:
Don't be a disabled pedestrian in Clearfield, Utah.

https://youtu.be/S2uw0ZN_vn4?t=244

(Subsidiary question: how to you cross a sideroad with no crosswalk without committing the offence of jaywalking? Can pedestrians fly in the USA?)

(Thrown at me by the algorithm. I find the perverse incentive to drink and drive bizarre.)

I remember trying to cross a busy 4 lane road on foot in Florida a few years ago. The pedestrian crossing gave you about 10 seconds to do so.

LostPassword · 4:11PM

bondegezou said:
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."

I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.

As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.

Nigelb · 4:13PM

I didn't realise there is an AUKUS hypersonic program.

Update on United States
Hypersonics Activities
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20250005993/downloads/250618 Tours HiSST US update.pdf

Also that the US has a JV with Japan.

Stuartinromford · 4:16PM

bondegezou said:

Andy_JS said:
Only 154 MPs vote in favour of the ECHR? Not much of a vote of confidence.

"MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR
The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news
Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?

Some more on the story;

The vote by 63 Labour MPs against Nigel Farage’s ten-minute rule bill on the UK leaving the European convention on human rights – without which the Commons would have backed the bill – happened because a few Labour backbenchers warned whips and the party hierarchy that they had to act.

While 10-minute rule bills have no chance of becoming law without subsequent government backing, MPs including Stella Creasy warned that allowing Farage’s bill to be passed would send a terrible signal to European neighbours, who would not necessarily understand the purely symbolic impact of the vote.

The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote. After a pushback, this was amended to say that while frontbenchers should do this, those on the backbenches could vote if they wanted.

“To let such a bill pass at a time of sensitivity in negotiations over our European deal would be taken badly,” Creasy said.

And the party splits;
The 95 MPs voting for Farage’s proposal to leave the ECHR came from:
The Conservatives: 87
Reform UK: 3
DUP: 2
Independents: 2 (Rupert Lowe and Patrick Spencer)
TUV: 1

And the 155 MPs voting against came from:
Lib Dems: 64
Labour: 63
Independents: 10
SNP: 7
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green party: 4
Alliance: 1
SDLP: 1
UUP: 1

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news

That's a higher percentage of Conservatives than Reformers, isn't it?

SandyRentool · 4:17PM

Let's have a ballot for next Head of State. Two options:

William Windsor
Reopen Nominations

I'm voting for Ron.

viewcode · 4:19PM

Stuartinromford said:

bondegezou said:

Andy_JS said:
Only 154 MPs vote in favour of the ECHR? Not much of a vote of confidence.

"MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR
The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news
Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?
Some more on the story;

...The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote...

How about a three-line whip to tell them all to vote against? Honestly, what is wrong with Labour?

MattW · 4:21PM

Andy_JS said:

MattW said:
Don't be a disabled pedestrian in Clearfield, Utah.

https://youtu.be/S2uw0ZN_vn4?t=244

(Subsidiary question: how to you cross a sideroad with no crosswalk without committing the offence of jaywalking? Can pedestrians fly in the USA?)

(Thrown at me by the algorithm. I find the perverse incentive to drink and drive bizarre.)
I remember trying to cross a busy 4 lane road on foot in Florida a few years ago. The pedestrian crossing gave you about 10 seconds to do so.

Yep. This guy was put in handcuffs under a statute that did not apply.

Found the followup:
https://youtu.be/md-_qCjdSUA?t=581

viewcode · 4:21PM

HYUFD said:

ManOfGwent said:
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage

I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.

MattW · 4:27PM

Jim_Miller said:
FPT: Election day here in Washington state is next Tuesday. Which means that ballots must be postmarked by that day, to be counted. Since it is an odd-numbered year, I like to think of it as an off-off-year election. But there are a few interesting races, even so.

Yesterday, something happened that I can not recall ever happening to me before. As I was walking by the local library, I encountered three East Asians, trying to figure out what to do with a ballot. There are four possibiliities: put the ballot in the outgoing section of your mail box (if it is a new one, or put the flag up if it is an old one), take it to a box at city hall, put it in a mailbox on a street somewhere, or take it to the local post office. (I prefer the last.) I'm not sure which one they were looking for.

The library opens at noon on Tuesdays, and it was about 11 in the morning, so what I should have done was taken the three to the post office, which is less than a 10 minute walk from the library. But I was carrying a heavy bag of groceries, so I just pointed them in the general direction. (Yes, the extra exercise would have done me good.)

And now I have to fill out my own ballot, which I will take to the post office tomorrow morning.

(It is possible to vote in person in Washington state. As I recall, each county is required to have one place open for those who prefer voting in person, or need assistance. Not many do it, especially in the counties with larger populations. Oh, and you can register to vote on election day, which would require going to one of those centers.)

Thanks ! Interesting. It sounds like a system with lots of room for adjustments.

I see that Okanogan County is 5281 square miles.

Stuartinromford · 4:29PM

viewcode said:

Stuartinromford said:

bondegezou said:

Andy_JS said:
Only 154 MPs vote in favour of the ECHR? Not much of a vote of confidence.

"MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR
The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news
Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?
Some more on the story;

...The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote...
How about a three-line whip to tell them all to vote against? Honestly, what is wrong with Labour?

Frit, as someone once said. And that after a couple of days where it looked like they had eaten their Weetabix.

But there are some disappointing names on that Conservative list.

HYUFD · 4:35PM

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

ManOfGwent said:
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.

I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now

HYUFD · 4:36PM

SandyRentool said:
Let's have a ballot for next Head of State. Two options:

William Windsor
Reopen Nominations

I'm voting for Ron.

No, monarchs shouldn't be elected, the whole point of constitutional monarchs is they are not politicians just ceremonial heads of state

Malmesbury · 4:36PM

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.

As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.

bondegezou said:
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."

If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.

He *claimed* to be a science nerd.

In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.

The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.

viewcode · 4:39PM

Stuartinromford said:

viewcode said:

Stuartinromford said:

bondegezou said:

Andy_JS said:
Only 154 MPs vote in favour of the ECHR? Not much of a vote of confidence.

"MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR
The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/29/shabana-mahmood-home-office-immigration-pmqs-labour-keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-live-news
Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?
Some more on the story;

...The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote...
How about a three-line whip to tell them all to vote against? Honestly, what is wrong with Labour?

Frit, as someone once said. And that after a couple of days where it looked like they had eaten their Weetabix.

But there are some disappointing names on that Conservative list.

"...I’m told Labour MPs have been told by whips to *abstain* in the vote on Nigel Farage’s ten-min rule bill on leaving the ECHR, which has left some furious. Whips’ arguments seems to be to just ignore it. Labour MPs worry it leaves Lib Dems/Greens looking like only they care on this..."

https://bsky.app/profile/peterwalker99.bsky.social/post/3m4dke3tluk2j

I despair, I really do.

FrancisUrquhart · 4:39PM

The attorney general has blamed "out of date" legislation for the collapse of a case against two men accused of spying for China.

Lord Hermer - who is the government's chief legal adviser - said if a new law had been in place at the time of the alleged offences he had "no doubt" the trial would have gone ahead.

BBC News - Attorney general blames outdated law for collapse of China spy case - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn972plvv43o

Eabhal · 4:43PM

Malmesbury said:

LostPassword said:

bondegezou said:
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.

As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.

bondegezou said:
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...

ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"

Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"

BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"

Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.

He *claimed* to be a science nerd.

In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.

The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.

Things that aren't terrorism:

- Trying to burn asylum hotel down
- Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs
- making bombs in a shed
- radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)

Terrorism:

- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group

Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy – politicalbetting.com

Comments