Surely the real issue of Monarch v President is not which is best but what powers they have.
I have no problem with a Monarch as long as they are effectively a non political actor with Power mostly retained by a parliament and elected politicians.
The issue isn't how we choose our head of state but what powers they have.
Can or should they be allowed to dismiss a government, or call an election? Should they be able to make laws or strike them down? Declare war?
The King can't fire Trident, but Starmer can without even asking his cabinet.
Is there a place for the failsafe of someone who can remove a popular government with a mandate from office if what it is doing is wrong, even if popular with voters and how do you stop them dismiisng one they personally don't like.
Much like the ECHR it is an insurance policy to prevent a Government treating you differently just because it doesn't like who you are or what you say. You have certain rights they can't touch even if the general public want them to, or does that infringe the rights of Parliament?
Where do we draw the line between Parliament and People, between the public will and the individuals rights and what role and power do we give the head of State in deciding between them.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
He wasn't being that different from some others. In a nation where over a quarter vote Reform now he is also one of the few Reform voters on here
Moonshine got a ban too. Merely for quoting Jess Phillips on BBC QT.
This group doesn’t want to hear from reform or reform minded voters. It wants to live in an echo chamber.
The forum is all the poorer for different perspectives.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
Range = ability to loiter, the ability to take indirect routes and the ability to be based further away from the enemy.
Not just the ability to fly in a straight line for x miles and go straight back
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a hangover from Empire. Grandiose and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
The judge's remarks are fine as far as the circumstance go, but seem ignorant of existing police policy (and training) which would not have suggested the automatic handcuffing* of Nowak, even if he had been the assailant, and would have mandated a far more thorough assessment of his condition.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault. The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
Pb users rant about PRIVATE BUSINESS deciding what it sells. So, your alternative is government control? More red tape?
Just be honest, it's not a free market you want.
Consumers giving consumer feedback is something these businesses pay a great deal of money for.
I’m a Sainsbury’s shopper, I’m off there now. I’ll have an opinion on it if I want and I will give feedback if I want.
I've become very used to using Sainsburys SmartShop, and now it seems ridiculously inconvenient to have to unload all your groceries from the trolley to be scanned and put back in again. This, more than anything, keeps me going back to my local Sainsburys.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
Range = ability to loiter, the ability to take indirect routes and the ability to be based further away from the enemy.
Not just the ability to fly in a straight line for x miles and go straight back
Well, quite. But the attraction of a long range fighter is a lot more obvious to us than it is to (say) Germany.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
When King of the unhinged headline Allister Heath is quoted as a sage source, one has to conclude that PB has lost its mind.
If Alister Heath says it it pretty much guarantees that it is rage-baiting tosh.
I am more inclined to believe Sir Andy Cooke, the recently reired Inspector of Constabulary:
"Cooke, who was appointed by the Conservatives and won praise from both main parties, said: “Throughout my five years at the inspectorate, I found no evidence at all to support any claim there was an anti-white bias in operational policing."
I believe as a nation we are approaching a very dangerous crossroads. When a disingenuous hypocrite politician is allowed to promote a totally false narrative, a narrative which far from being called out is propagated by the Daily Telegraph as fact we are heading to a place that we resisted in the 1930s. By the "likes" that the original post got, even the august posters of PB are buying into these lies.
“Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).” – NPCC
When police forces are being told to do this, and they are, it is clear to all but a complete idiot that two tier policing is a reality. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a 'vibe', it is there in black and white. Police forces are actively being judged by the Government on whether they can produce equal outcomes for ethnic minorities when compared to white people. That means if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it.
I have pointed this out to you, and will continue to do so. By ignoring it, it is now you who is lying.
It does not mean that if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it. You’ve just made that up. A black man walking down the street in the UK is much more likely to be stopped by police than a white man.
No, I have not 'made it up', I am drawing an obvious logical conclusion.
“I will hold police leaders to account for delivering the tangible outcomes that policing has committed to, but I will also support them to achieve the PRAP’s aims.” - that is Dame Diana Johnson responding to the NPCC guidance.
Forces are compelled to produce equality of outcome, and the logical end point of that (unless they are going to go around arresting non ethnic minorities to even the score) that crime or possible crime will go ignored. That is unacceptable, as much for the ethnic minority communities being policed as anyone else.
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
When King of the unhinged headline Allister Heath is quoted as a sage source, one has to conclude that PB has lost its mind.
If Alister Heath says it it pretty much guarantees that it is rage-baiting tosh.
I am more inclined to believe Sir Andy Cooke, the recently reired Inspector of Constabulary:
"Cooke, who was appointed by the Conservatives and won praise from both main parties, said: “Throughout my five years at the inspectorate, I found no evidence at all to support any claim there was an anti-white bias in operational policing."
I believe as a nation we are approaching a very dangerous crossroads. When a disingenuous hypocrite politician is allowed to promote a totally false narrative, a narrative which far from being called out is propagated by the Daily Telegraph as fact we are heading to a place that we resisted in the 1930s. By the "likes" that the original post got, even the august posters of PB are buying into these lies.
“Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).” – NPCC
When police forces are being told to do this, and they are, it is clear to all but a complete idiot that two tier policing is a reality. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a 'vibe', it is there in black and white. Police forces are actively being judged by the Government on whether they can produce equal outcomes for ethnic minorities when compared to white people. That means if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it.
I have pointed this out to you, and will continue to do so. By ignoring it, it is now you who is lying.
It does not mean that if there is an epidemic of a particular crime amongst an ethnic minority, ignoring it. You’ve just made that up. A black man walking down the street in the UK is much more likely to be stopped by police than a white man.
No, I have not 'made it up', I am drawing an obvious logical conclusion.
“I will hold police leaders to account for delivering the tangible outcomes that policing has committed to, but I will also support them to achieve the PRAP’s aims.” - that is Dame Diana Johnson responding to the NPCC guidance.
Forces are compelled to produce equality of outcome, and the logical end point of that (unless they are going to go around arresting non ethnic minorities to even the score) that crime or possible crime will go ignored. That is unacceptable, as much for the ethnic minority communities being policed as anyone else.
It’s really quite amazing how you convince yourself that you’re the one being logical and rational when 99% of the time it’s complete and utter dross
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Look at Charles’ visit to the US last month, if you want the ultimate example of the projection of soft power a monarch can bring to the table.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
He wasn't being that different from some others. In a nation where over a quarter vote Reform now he is also one of the few Reform voters on here
Moonshine got a ban too. Merely for quoting Jess Phillips on BBC QT.
This group doesn’t want to hear from reform or reform minded voters. It wants to live in an echo chamber.
The forum is all the poorer for different perspectives.
I wasn't aware of Moonshine's ban, but twice in the past Moonshine has linked to an X post that was QAnon and linked to a post that linked to a vile antisemitism poster. I called Moonshine out on it.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
Really.
Firstly the High North stuff is largely nonsense.
On the ground the Russian army reinforcement is estimated to be 5-10k and Finland alone joining added at least five times that to Nato.
Yes they have reopened three airbases mothballed since the cold war but they can only really operate a limited number of aircraft and are part of Russian Bastion Defence; protection Russia from us crossing the North Pole.
Realistically they don't have the tankers or ground infrastructure to mount anything significant towards Canada.
They are replacing surface ships and submarines but with fewer and shorter range surface ships and a single type of sub because of their depleted ship buiding capacity not expansion.
Again most fo it fits in with Bastion Defence and Kalbrisation, building up a defensive wall and firing from behind it, just as in Ukraine.
Even if there was a real threat in the High North it's better met but forces of the Nations there and sending forces to be based there in a crisis than trying to do it from here.
We're still semi obsessed with the UK/Greenland? Iceland Gap when the real front line is the 3B's, Barents, Baltic & Black.
We still worry about another Battle for the Atlantic, but Russians long range Naval capacity isn't anywhere near capable of cutting off Europe, not even close.
Just as America can't defend Europe with long range aircraft or transports from the other side of the Atlantic and is better off basing them in Europe, so to we and Europe are better off basing forces in Finland where the war will start than buying long range aircrat to fly all the way there.
It's the same for the Mediterranean;
Why build a plane that can fly there from Kent when we have allies, in Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus.
I am not confusing Imperial legacy with geography.
The UK still has "Finest Hour Syndrome!" seeing today through the lense of the past, believing Britain standing alone, needs to be able to do these things without others.
Not only do we not have too, we will fail if we try.
Vehicle running at speed into the back of a queue of stopped vehicles on a rural road, pushing the back one (cammer) into the one in front, who jumps out and has a go at the car pushed onto him before he sees the actual cause.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
I fall somewhere between the two of you. OLB is quite right about the historical stability and sense of tradition, and that's still largely the case, but there is a real question about whether that will be so in ten or twenty years' time, given the real lack of support among the young, and feeling that it symbolises class division. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66707923
I'm instinctively a conservative when it comes to institutions that work, and in the modern era, the monarchy largely has. But rationally, it would be extremely hard to justify de novo, and if ceases to be seen to work, then change would be fine by me.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
Really.
Firstly the High North stuff is largely nonsense.
On the ground the Russian army reinforcement is estimated to be 5-10k and Finland alone joining added at least five times that to Nato.
Yes they have reopened three airbases mothballed since the cold war but they can only really operate a limited number of aircraft and are part of Russian Bastion Defence; protection Russia from us crossing the North Pole.
Realistically they don't have the tankers or ground infrastructure to mount anything significant towards Canada.
They are replacing surface ships and submarines but with fewer and shorter range surface ships and a single type of sub because of their depleted ship buiding capacity not expansion.
Again most fo it fits in with Bastion Defence and Kalbrisation, building up a defensive wall and firing from behind it, just as in Ukraine.
Even if there was a real threat in the High North it's better met but forces of the Nations there and sending forces to be based there in a crisis than trying to do it from here.
We're still semi obsessed with the UK/Greenland? Iceland Gap when the real front line is the 3B's, Barents, Baltic & Black..
The carriers have also operated in the Baltic, of course. But the utility of the range limited F35B, along with its weapons limitations, is questionable.
The Telegraph egg piece is an eggscellent tabloid story. The Telegraph know exactly how to egg on their readers by feeding them the wrong end of the shtick. Great fun !
According to the piece, this is a move back to the 1970s (is that not what all these people want?), when it all went brown because of a false belief that brown eggs were "healthier" (see wholemeal bread) and false claims about white eggs being "bleached". That is, it is all media narrative anyway.
And that Sainsbury's are also doing it for cost (white egg hens are more efficient per amount of food given to the hen) and higher welfare (less hen pecking amongst those breeds) reasons.
There are not a few people in the comments getting quite eggsasperated, and confirming that they will spend more money on their inefficiently produced brown eggs, as long as they know it is damaging the environment more.
I have advised them all to buy blue heggs. Green is also available. Turquoise - I'm not sure.
Sainsbury are only planning this for their own brand eggs.
So another none issue to get all in a rage about
Most people generally hate being manipulated.
Yet they continue to make it easy for the big social media firms to get them persistently angry.
People need to wise up and we really need to teach kids in very clear terms how social media works and that our emotions are the ingredients that make the companies money.
How the media works, not just social media.
The old media would have caused lots of anger too.
There is truth in that, but the degree to which it applies has changed exponentially because of social media. It is a harmful, addictive and destructive industry that should be taxed and regulated in the same category as alcohol, gambling and tobacco.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
It all comes back to the subject we don’t discuss here, where the institutional coverup was seen as better than prosecuting criminals for reasons of ‘community relations’.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
O'Brien plays a clip of Farage urging us not to blame men for the murder of Sarah Everard explaining how the evil of one man shouldn't be transposed onto all British men (and presumably all policemen). Bit of a contrast with this week's events and his call for "rage".
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
I wonder whether Farage would be so comfortable with his call for an under reaction to the rape and murder of Sarah Everard if the perpetrator had been of colour rather than a white policeman.
I think Farage is very good at appealing to certain sections of the electorate, but I don't think an association with these protests is going to do him any good outside those sections.
But then again, my impression is that he's more interested in money than political power. Maybe he thinks there may be more 'gifts' to come from those outside the UK.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
We need a female Tommy Robinson to rally the women football hooligans to fight the police.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
O'Brien plays a clip of Farage urging us not to blame men for the murder of Sarah Everard explaining how the evil of one man shouldn't be transposed onto all British men (and presumably all policemen). Bit of a contrast with this week's events and his call for "rage".
Has Farage done the same with the Sikhs? I notice Hodges is trying to whip up that topic. Clearly, the rage is with the police (as it was after Everard).
It has been noted that Nowak fits the adolescence profile. Perhaps if politicians didn't treat works of fiction as documentaries, then the police might do better.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
Really.
Firstly the High North stuff is largely nonsense.
On the ground the Russian army reinforcement is estimated to be 5-10k and Finland alone joining added at least five times that to Nato.
Yes they have reopened three airbases mothballed since the cold war but they can only really operate a limited number of aircraft and are part of Russian Bastion Defence; protection Russia from us crossing the North Pole.
Realistically they don't have the tankers or ground infrastructure to mount anything significant towards Canada.
They are replacing surface ships and submarines but with fewer and shorter range surface ships and a single type of sub because of their depleted ship buiding capacity not expansion.
Again most fo it fits in with Bastion Defence and Kalbrisation, building up a defensive wall and firing from behind it, just as in Ukraine.
Even if there was a real threat in the High North it's better met but forces of the Nations there and sending forces to be based there in a crisis than trying to do it from here.
We're still semi obsessed with the UK/Greenland? Iceland Gap when the real front line is the 3B's, Barents, Baltic & Black..
The carriers have also operated in the Baltic, of course. But the utility of the range limited F35B, along with its weapons limitations, is questionable.
Which is why we should have just gone for the F-35A and moved what was the Cold War BAOR to Poland instead!
It's better to have forces where the war is going to satrt than try and get them there once it's started. it's also a far better way to stop it from starting.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Look at Charles’ visit to the US last month, if you want the ultimate example of the projection of soft power a monarch can bring to the table.
Otoh all of that fluffing of Donald Trump with our 'royal card' was kind of demeaning in a sense, and I'm not sure what it really achieved other than to stroke his ego and reinforce his delusions about himself.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
VAT is one of the most progressive taxes. If you’re on the poverty line the vast majority of your expenditure isn’t subject to VAT at the full rate. Rent, food, utilities, all zero or reduced rates.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Look at Charles’ visit to the US last month, if you want the ultimate example of the projection of soft power a monarch can bring to the table.
Otoh all of that fluffing of Donald Trump with our 'royal card' was kind of demeaning in a sense, and I'm not sure what it really achieved other than to stroke his ego and reinforce his delusions about himself.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
We need a female Tommy Robinson to rally the women football hooligans to fight the police.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Good morning
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
As a Tory I wouldn't go down the route of what the Tories did during COVID.
You can have "Boris Johnson invented and rolled out the Oxford vaccine", but I can't give you any other ticks.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
VAT is one of the most progressive taxes. If you’re on the poverty line the vast majority of your expenditure isn’t subject to VAT at the full rate. Rent, food, utilities, all zero or reduced rates.
Yes but above the poverty line it hammers the working class and as a concept it’s perverse to tax consumption under capitalism
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
VAT is one of the most progressive taxes. If you’re on the poverty line the vast majority of your expenditure isn’t subject to VAT at the full rate. Rent, food, utilities, all zero or reduced rates.
If you only buy essentials you are in clover, but anything else and it's regressive. Petrol for your moped to get to work?
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
We need a female Tommy Robinson to rally the women football hooligans to fight the police.
Maybe Tommy Robinson is a woman? We know they're not actually called Tommy Robinson. Can we be sure they are actually a man?
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
10%. There were a few relatively minor alterations, but after Thatcher came to power it went to 17.5% and then, IIRC, up to 20%
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
We need a female Tommy Robinson to rally the women football hooligans to fight the police.
Maybe Tommy Robinson is a woman? We know they're not actually called Tommy Robinson. Can we be sure they are actually a man?
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
10%. There were a few relatively minor alterations, but after Thatcher came to power it went to 17.5% and then, IIRC, up to 20%
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
VAT is one of the most progressive taxes. If you’re on the poverty line the vast majority of your expenditure isn’t subject to VAT at the full rate. Rent, food, utilities, all zero or reduced rates.
If you only buy essentials you are in clover, but anything else and it's regressive. Petrol for your moped to get to work?
Yes absolutely, petrol duty is one of the most regressive taxes.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I don't really feel that, I have to say, but I know many do and not just on the right as you demonstrate. The monarchy's prospects depends a great deal on William, I think. It needs to be unifying and popular to survive. The idea of using it to butter up capricious autocratic US presidents will hopefully die with this one.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
What's happened to our Jacobite friend? I liked his comments, even if I disagreed with them.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
This comes from a Dan Niedle or TPA article showing Britain has more taxes than Germany and fewer than France, but also that our tax take is less than either. That part is important – eliminating niche taxes is not the same as reducing taxation. https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/30/france-germany-uk-number-of-taxes-charts/
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
It was the latter, but the point remains that the politicians left the police high and dry. The politicians were signalling to the police that there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to policing COVID rules, but refused to call out the protesters who were breaking the rules.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Paxton I believe has a poor fundraising record. Both candidates have a lot of baggage. People I have spoken to seem to think Talarico needs to improve his standing with black voters, but if he can then he has the best chance of turning TX blue since Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz.
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
Your team let tax, spending and zero growth run rampant, despite claiming austerity would resolve our economic ills.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
I don't have a team.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
If course increasing VAT is a regressive tax which has a significantly higher effect on poorer people. VAT is the Tory tax of choice. Wasn't it at 2.5% when Heath introduced it?
VAT is one of the most progressive taxes. If you’re on the poverty line the vast majority of your expenditure isn’t subject to VAT at the full rate. Rent, food, utilities, all zero or reduced rates.
Yes but above the poverty line it hammers the working class and as a concept it’s perverse to tax consumption under capitalism
But - and it's a really important but - incentives matter.
Taxing consumption is hugely less economically damaging than taxing work. Given that the realistic options are a) hammer the working class via employment taxes, or b) hammer the working class via consumption taxes, we should be picking b) every time.
Given a blank sheet of paper to design a tax system from scratch, I would have no employment taxes at-all, and raise all my spending from consumption taxes - you'd get far better economic performance that way round than with the current system. It's politically impossible of course, because people somehow prefer to lose 30% of their pay at source then 20% of it later when they spend it, rather than pay a ~50% VAT rate, but there we are.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
It was during covid though, so it was the clash of public health and the ability to protest.
"That's rather at odds with the project requirement for a very long range aircraft - maritime nations like Japan and the UK have much more in common than with Germany, whose needs are likely very different."
Here we go again with the Maritime Nation stuff.
We have a 200 mile EEZ which in the case of teh UK is constrained by the Continent, Ireland and Scandanavia and once the water is too deep, after about 100 miles, only has fish of value and they cost more to protect than they are worth.
Britain does of course have a collection of odd largely worthless colonial outposts but that's a historical anomoly not a vital national interest.
Regardless we still seem to believe we have both obligation and need to be able to project power way beyond our shores even though to do anything really useful is way beyond what we can afford or are willing to pay.
At least we haven't yet had it justified by realling off nonsense names from history like Drake, Raleigh and Nelson.
Peter.
You're confusing imperial legacy with geography. A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
Really.
Firstly the High North stuff is largely nonsense.
On the ground the Russian army reinforcement is estimated to be 5-10k and Finland alone joining added at least five times that to Nato.
Yes they have reopened three airbases mothballed since the cold war but they can only really operate a limited number of aircraft and are part of Russian Bastion Defence; protection Russia from us crossing the North Pole.
Realistically they don't have the tankers or ground infrastructure to mount anything significant towards Canada.
They are replacing surface ships and submarines but with fewer and shorter range surface ships and a single type of sub because of their depleted ship buiding capacity not expansion.
Again most fo it fits in with Bastion Defence and Kalbrisation, building up a defensive wall and firing from behind it, just as in Ukraine.
Even if there was a real threat in the High North it's better met but forces of the Nations there and sending forces to be based there in a crisis than trying to do it from here.
We're still semi obsessed with the UK/Greenland? Iceland Gap when the real front line is the 3B's, Barents, Baltic & Black..
The carriers have also operated in the Baltic, of course. But the utility of the range limited F35B, along with its weapons limitations, is questionable.
The underlying problem with our aircraft carriers is they were designed to operate within NATO alongside US Navy aircraft carrier groups. Following Trump, if America is not playing then left to our own devices, we have two carriers with not enough planes to fly from them and not enough ships to defend them.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Is it not (for both) that anger is justified but rioting is not? The difference being there wasn't rioting in response to the Everard case.
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
It was during covid though, so it was the clash of public health and the ability to protest.
You have a point but coppers duffing up women was probably not Plod's finest hour under the circumstances. Although in that instance the footage spoke for itself.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
It was the latter, but the point remains that the politicians left the police high and dry. The politicians were signalling to the police that there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to policing COVID rules, but refused to call out the protesters who were breaking the rules.
Surely there is a clear difference between police being attacked and injured and having to deal with a load of women refusing to leave a park?
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
It was the latter, but the point remains that the politicians left the police high and dry. The politicians were signalling to the police that there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to policing COVID rules, but refused to call out the protesters who were breaking the rules.
Surely there is a clear difference between police being attacked and injured and having to deal with a load of women refusing to leave a park?
The police then got dogs abuse for doing their jobs. The politicians should have made it clear to everyone that COVID comes first.
I've lost all respect for Wes Streeting now with his comments about being a monarchist.
Well done Streeting for showing respect to our wonderful King, how TSE could call himself a Tory while failing to do so is beyond me!
Being a monarch is an accident of birth so nothing special. No special genes. No supranatural gifts. Just random sperm.
Do we really need them?
The King was anointed by God to be our monarch and trained from birth for the role actually.
Given the alternative is President Farage or Blair of course we still need them
Anointed by God is a figment of imagination, actually.
A non executive president in the UK would probably end up being someone like Floella Benjamin, rather than a Blair or Farage.
Slebs who would be a better ceremonial head of state than Chaz:
Lewis Hamilton David Beckham Bob Mortimer Joanna Lumley Olivia Colman
All of those are less intellectual with less gravitas wisdom and class than our King and all would be worse heads of state. Joanna Lumley is the only one who comes close but she is a monarchist anyway
Nothing screams class like getting an underling to squeeze toothpaste for you and being a fantasy tampon.
The King has a wealth of knowledge on a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment to history and set up the Princes Trust. Unfortunately this site is now increasingly dominated by leftist liberals so that even relatively popular rightwing opinions like keeping the monarchy get shouted down. See the latest Leon ban while when was the last time a leftist on here was banned?
He didn't get banned for being right wing though did he?. He got banned for being abusive.
I have no issue with keeping the monarchy. I am happy to keep it. I do have an issue with printing nonsense about it though. It doesn't do supporting the monarchy any favours and is likely to alienate people who have no objection to it so you do more harm than good for your cause.
Also worth pointing out that most are just having fun with you because you rise to the bait.
I too have no great objection to the monarchy, but wouldn't fight to save it, either. The behind the curtain stuff is symbolic, and matters to some, but presenting it as God having an active role in the process will seem absurd to most people, I suspect.
I see it as a grandiose hangover from Empire. Bloated and a bit sad. It feels like we're wandering around still wearing our glad-rags long after the party has finished. Rather infantilising too. And it's a huge symbolic validation (celebration even) of colonialism and hereditary privilege.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
I am an enthusiastic monarchist. I think the institution has provided real ballast and stability over the years and helps to define who we are in a turbulent and uncertain world, a kind of invisible thread running back through our past and guiding us into the future. It's produced some rogues over the centuries, but the last three sovereigns have been kind, thoughtful and productive monarchs, and the next in line also looks thoroughly decent. Ditching the monarchy would be utter insanity and a greater act of national self harm than Brexit.
I'm an unenthusiastic republican. The monarchy is not the system I'd choose, and at some point we should get rid of it - but not yet. There are pros and cons of a monarchy, and - like Brexit - anyone who recognises only pros or only cons clearly neither understands nor is properly engaging with the issue. Contrary to the comment a few above, I don't think any of those slebs would do a better job than Chaz, national treasures though they are; to my surprise, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
Charles is good, I agree. I feel more positively about him than I did the previous one.
Charles II was fond of betting. Plus was cool. I liked him
His absolutism, and refusal to listen to Parliament, set in motion the conditions for the Glorious Revolution. (The argument over the Exclusion Bill was also the origins of the Whigs and the Tories.)
Wildly O/t but just seen this on the Beeb site: Sir Ian Bauckham, the chief regulator of Ofqual, said invigilators are being trained to spot covert equipment, including smart glasses, hidden earpieces and pens with built-in screens.
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Was there any rioting after her murder, or was it just that protestors broke covid distancing rules? I thought it was the latter.
It was the latter, but the point remains that the politicians left the police high and dry. The politicians were signalling to the police that there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to policing COVID rules, but refused to call out the protesters who were breaking the rules.
Surely there is a clear difference between police being attacked and injured and having to deal with a load of women refusing to leave a park?
The police then got dogs abuse for doing their jobs. The politicians should have made it clear to everyone that COVID comes first.
Except that they’d already made it clear from the BLM protests, that protesting is more important than COVID.
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)so
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Well you said “politicians” generally. But you’re correct that Starmer said that the anger was “justified and understandable” following the Everard murder so I think the claim of hypocrisy is fair enough.
Fair point. The George Floyd reaction is a better parallel, I think. Sadiq Khan said that the murder of Floyd had "rightly ignited fury" and Starmer said his death should be "the catalyst for change".
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
Interesting juxtaposition on O'Brexit regarding Farage's call to escalate unrest after the tragic Nowak case and his call to de-escalate the anger after the equally tragic Everard case.
The inclement weather hasn't really helped Farage's call to arms. What is the weather forecast for the weekend?
As ever, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't recall the politicians calling for calm after the Everard murder.
Mainly because the protestors tended to be women. Who tend not to do things like get drunk, violent and assault the police*.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
It was during covid though, so it was the clash of public health and the ability to protest.
You have a point but coppers duffing up women was probably not Plod's finest hour under the circumstances. Although in that instance the footage spoke for itself.
It was another tricky situation. On the one hand you have people screaming at us to 'Stay home to save lives' and all the lockdowns etc and on the other hundreds of women wanted to protest the brutal murder at the hands of a serving police officer. If the authorities let the protest just go on and on, why should anyone else obey the dictats? Why did people accept being made to sit 2m apart at funerals?
Pb users rant about PRIVATE BUSINESS deciding what it sells. So, your alternative is government control? More red tape?
Just be honest, it's not a free market you want.
Consumers giving consumer feedback is something these businesses pay a great deal of money for.
I’m a Sainsbury’s shopper, I’m off there now. I’ll have an opinion on it if I want and I will give feedback if I want.
I've become very used to using Sainsburys SmartShop, and now it seems ridiculously inconvenient to have to unload all your groceries from the trolley to be scanned and put back in again. This, more than anything, keeps me going back to my local Sainsburys.
Yes it’s very convenient. I always use it. The nectar points come in handy too
Wildly O/t but just seen this on the Beeb site: Sir Ian Bauckham, the chief regulator of Ofqual, said invigilators are being trained to spot covert equipment, including smart glasses, hidden earpieces and pens with built-in screens.
Must be a very tiny screen/
Or a very big pen. The pencil museum in Keswick has the worlds biggest pencil (well it was last time I went). Its massive.
"Allister Heath Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
"Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today"
Employment rates (2022 figures): White 77% Black 69%
Stop and search (2023 figures) per 100,000: White British 5.6 Black 24.5
Court judges (2024 figures) v working age population (2021 figures): White 89.6% v 80.7% Black 1.3% v 4.4%
Median earnings (2022): White £14.35 per hour Black £13.53 per hour
Employment - controlled for education? Stop and search - controlled for location, criminal tendency (ie gang membership) etc? Judges - controlled for age? Earnings - controlled for education?
Those are all raw figures. Court judges is compared with the working age population.
The ADR UK report linked to above does more in terms of trying to control for other factors.
Raw figures are pretty meaningless.
It’s a particular bugbear of mine that people look at the percentage of, say, court judges in their 60s who are black and say “it’s too low, we’re racist”.
No. It just means that 35 years ago we had fewer black lawyers qualifying, and hence have a smaller pool of candidates for judges today. It will work itself out over time
Raw figures are a good starting point. But, yes, these are complex phenomena where it can be difficult to know what factors are at play…
… which is what I’ve been saying in reaction to the headless chickens running around claiming we have two tier policing and anti-white racism based on one event that we still don’t know the full details of.
A totally fiat point. Here's another one. The incident was in December last year, essentially 6 months ago. So why hasn't the investigation into the policed conduct been completed? It didn't need to wait for the court case to finish, the outcome would not affect what happened on the night. If I had any power I'd be getting that report finished asap.
But then the next problem will be if the report doesn't match the narrative for the far right, they will claim it's a whitewash. A better question might be how have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative?
The IOPC investigation clearly cannot be published until the court case is finished. Certain facts in the report will depend on the court case's conclusion, so it can't be finished before the court case concludes (e.g., it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too). Hopefully, we will see the report soon.
(I note that the IOPC's budget was cut by the Tories, more than a third in real terms since 2018, so that's going to make it harder for them to carry out thorough investigations in a timely manner.)
It is clear that some on the right are not interested in reading anything that might contradict that on which they have already made up their mind. This was apparent on the previous thread.
How have we reached a situation where people believe this narrative? Because the radical right in the US has been pushing a white grievance model, and the radical right in the UK have taken that up.
As I'm a bit thick, why would this be true? " it is pertinent to the IOPC investigation whether Digwa was found guilty or not, many of the judge's comments are relevant too". The actions of the officers on the night do not go back and change via quantum entanglement if Digwa is found guilty or innocent surely? I totally understand why the report could not be released before the conclusion of the trial for obvious reasons. But as an investigation of the actions of the police officers, why does Digwa's guilt or innocence matter?
Can you not see a difference between "the police wrongly took the word of the murderer" and "the police wrongly took the word of someone who had been attacked by Nowak" (which was Digwa's defence AIUI)?
No. There was a man lying on the ground with 4 stab wounds which would prove to be fatal. Who the F*** cares who or what he was? He needed urgent medical help. He did not need handcuffs.
It's worth reading the judge's sentencing statement where he explains the police were seriously misled by the murderer and his brother and in his view acted reasonably. Murderers don't usually call the police to the crime scene, they had no reason to believe it was anything other than the two men claimed it to be. There was no visible wound when they put handcuffs on Nowak and the policeman was horrified when he found out Nowak had a serious injury a moment later.
The police are being maligned, not least by politicians who should know better. The case is not remotely similar to George Floyd where the murderer was actually the policeman, nor to Stephen Lawrence where the police simply didn't bother to investigate properly because the victim was black.
There will be, and should be, an investigation into the police operation and no doubt there will be some changes to procedure. It's not obvious from the sentencing remarks what generalised changes would have made a substantial difference to what happened to Henry Nowak, sadly.
I have read the remarks, which do not fully describe the police actions but confirm that no first aid would have saved Nowak's life, and have not seen the footage. One luxury I afford myself in old age is not watching things that will upset or offend me. However, those who have watched have commented that Nowak's injuries were discovered only after other police officers insisted on following the rules and checking him. If so, then it sounds like the police guidelines were correct but not followed, which is the opposite of what some politicians have suggested. But as I say, I've not checked the footage.
Comments
Just be honest, it's not a free market you want.
I have no problem with a Monarch as long as they are effectively a non political actor with Power mostly retained by a parliament and elected politicians.
The issue isn't how we choose our head of state but what powers they have.
Can or should they be allowed to dismiss a government, or call an election?
Should they be able to make laws or strike them down? Declare war?
The King can't fire Trident, but Starmer can without even asking his cabinet.
Is there a place for the failsafe of someone who can remove a popular government with a mandate from office if what it is doing is wrong, even if popular with voters and how do you stop them dismiisng one they personally don't like.
Much like the ECHR it is an insurance policy to prevent a Government treating you differently just because it doesn't like who you are or what you say. You have certain rights they can't touch even if the general public want them to, or does that infringe the rights of Parliament?
Where do we draw the line between Parliament and People, between the public will and the individuals rights and what role and power do we give the head of State in deciding between them.
Peter.
A GCAP fleet, for example, could probably replace almost all of our carriers' NATO contribution in the North Atlantic and "High North". and be a great deal more reliable/available. The range would also cover a significant part of the Mediterranean and the European mainland.
Giving up the carriers in the medium term, as GCAP comes into service, might make for a more coherent navy.
The attraction to Japan for long range air cover is even more obvious, of course.
This group doesn’t want to hear from reform or reform minded voters. It wants to live in an echo chamber.
The forum is all the poorer for different perspectives.
We have doubled the number of taxes — Reeves must start the cull
There were 43 types of tax in the UK in 1993 and now there are 90. The case for simplification is clear
https://www.thetimes.com/money/tax/article/we-have-doubled-the-number-of-taxes-reeves-must-start-the-cull-b7fxhmpq5
A Labour minister writes:
"Every meeting I have is 'who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others',"
I’m a Sainsbury’s shopper, I’m off there now. I’ll have an opinion on it if I want and I will give feedback if I want.
Not just the ability to fly in a straight line for x miles and go straight back
Its mad.
Otoh, there's the soft power it contributes, the nice visuals of the pomp and pageantry, the common history link back through time, the tourist pull, the fact that many people do get a sense of comfort from it.
I'd vote ABOLISH if there were a Referendum on the monarchy but I don't really want that Referendum.
*Handcuffing by the police, without reasonable justification, constitutes an assault.
The circumstance here, with Nowak lying on the ground, do not seem to provide that justification.
If you are not going to tax or borrow or grow the economy (you weren't very good at that between 2010 and 2024) what spending are you going to cut? The most expensive one, pensions? I suspect the benefits you will cut will be benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable and weakest in society. After all they don't vote.
But the attraction of a long range fighter is a lot more obvious to us than it is to (say) Germany.
“I will hold police leaders to account for delivering the tangible outcomes that policing has committed to, but I will also support them to achieve the PRAP’s aims.” - that is Dame Diana Johnson responding to the NPCC guidance.
Forces are compelled to produce equality of outcome, and the logical end point of that (unless they are going to go around arresting non ethnic minorities to even the score) that crime or possible crime will go ignored. That is unacceptable, as much for the ethnic minority communities being policed as anyone else.
Unhappy with Sainsbury's choice of products? Go to another supermarket...
When you wake up again 90 minutes later nothing has changed.
Also, I saw this a few weeks back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHXx9rs4NYI&t=58s
Firstly the High North stuff is largely nonsense.
On the ground the Russian army reinforcement is estimated to be 5-10k and Finland alone joining added at least five times that to Nato.
Yes they have reopened three airbases mothballed since the cold war but they can only really operate a limited number of aircraft and are part of Russian Bastion Defence; protection Russia from us crossing the North Pole.
Realistically they don't have the tankers or ground infrastructure to mount anything significant towards Canada.
They are replacing surface ships and submarines but with fewer and shorter range surface ships and a single type of sub because of their depleted ship buiding capacity not expansion.
Again most fo it fits in with Bastion Defence and Kalbrisation, building up a defensive wall and firing from behind it, just as in Ukraine.
Even if there was a real threat in the High North it's better met but forces of the Nations there and sending forces to be based there in a crisis than trying to do it from here.
We're still semi obsessed with the UK/Greenland? Iceland Gap when the real front line is the 3B's, Barents, Baltic & Black.
We still worry about another Battle for the Atlantic, but Russians long range Naval capacity isn't anywhere near capable of cutting off Europe, not even close.
Just as America can't defend Europe with long range aircraft or transports from the other side of the Atlantic and is better off basing them in Europe, so to we and Europe are better off basing forces in Finland where the war will start than buying long range aircrat to fly all the way there.
It's the same for the Mediterranean;
Why build a plane that can fly there from Kent when we have allies, in Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus.
I am not confusing Imperial legacy with geography.
The UK still has "Finest Hour Syndrome!" seeing today through the lense of the past, believing Britain standing alone, needs to be able to do these things without others.
Not only do we not have too, we will fail if we try.
Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZxa5xSPsAk&lc
Vehicle running at speed into the back of a queue of stopped vehicles on a rural road, pushing the back one (cammer) into the one in front, who jumps out and has a go at the car pushed onto him before he sees the actual cause.
OLB is quite right about the historical stability and sense of tradition, and that's still largely the case, but there is a real question about whether that will be so in ten or twenty years' time, given the real lack of support among the young, and feeling that it symbolises class division.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66707923
I'm instinctively a conservative when it comes to institutions that work, and in the modern era, the monarchy largely has. But rationally, it would be extremely hard to justify de novo, and if ceases to be seen to work, then change would be fine by me.
But the utility of the range limited F35B, along with its weapons limitations, is questionable.
The shifting teams in charge between 2010 and 2024 were pretty rubbish ** though I'm confident that the red team would have done worse.
** A few things they got right included personal pension reforms and increasing VAT.
And we never had any austerity though there was both higher economic growth and lower unemployment that Starmer and Reeves will achieve.
Though the police were so worried by a candlelit vigil for Everard that they wanted to detain people. Apparently the police felt that the vigil was "hostile" to them.
*We have a definite skill gap in the female football hooligan/fascist rioter segment. Something! Must! Be! Done!
But then again, my impression is that he's more interested in money than political power. Maybe he thinks there may be more 'gifts' to come from those outside the UK.
It has been noted that Nowak fits the adolescence profile. Perhaps if politicians didn't treat works of fiction as documentaries, then the police might do better.
It's better to have forces where the war is going to satrt than try and get them there once it's started. it's also a far better way to stop it from starting.
Peter.
Never forget that the covid crisis resulted in huge economic support which throughout Starmer demanded longer isolation and more spending
You can have "Boris Johnson invented and rolled out the Oxford vaccine", but I can't give you any other ticks.
Mind, that's not a guarantee of anything.....,
https://x.com/Eduard_Hellvig/status/2062423675362492864
(I've just realised he was one of the spooks being served dinner on Masterchef last week.)
Talarico has +6 favourability in Texas.
Paxton has -24.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dupab819Uh0
Also talk of a $600m spend on this fight.
Farage on the other has and on both occasions.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/30/france-germany-uk-number-of-taxes-charts/
There has been an awful lot of false equivalence (not least George Floyd) to justify Farage's narrative.
Taxing consumption is hugely less economically damaging than taxing work. Given that the realistic options are a) hammer the working class via employment taxes, or b) hammer the working class via consumption taxes, we should be picking b) every time.
Given a blank sheet of paper to design a tax system from scratch, I would have no employment taxes at-all, and raise all my spending from consumption taxes - you'd get far better economic performance that way round than with the current system. It's politically impossible of course, because people somehow prefer to lose 30% of their pay at source then 20% of it later when they spend it, rather than pay a ~50% VAT rate, but there we are.
"Allister Heath
Anti-white racism is real, and there’ll be more Henry Nowaks until it’s crushed
Critical race theory has taken us from Martin Luther King’s inspiring vision of a colour-blind society to today" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/03/anti-white-racism-is-real-and-its-been-corrupting-britain/
(The argument over the Exclusion Bill was also the origins of the Whigs and the Tories.)
He effectively ended his own line.
Sir Ian Bauckham, the chief regulator of Ofqual, said invigilators are being trained to spot covert equipment, including smart glasses, hidden earpieces and pens with built-in screens.
Must be a very tiny screen/