politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The NUM backs Nandy

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The NUM backs Nandy

Lisa Nandy has just secured the backing of National Union of Mineworkers, which is big get – there’s also speculation she could get support of the GMB https://t.co/y0ZF7Yg5dj

Read the full story here

bookseller

First (like Nandy)

rpjs

<FirstScouseKid>The NUM? Who are they?</FirstScouseKid>

<SecondScouseKid>Exactly!</SecondScouseKid>

kle4

Well it's easier than getting a whole bunch of CLPs I guess.

MarqueeMark

Starmer vs. Nandy is the best shot at power for Labour.

IanB2

Fifth like Burgon

RandallFlagg

MarqueeMark said:

Starmer vs. Nandy is the best shot at power for Labour.

If RLB fails to get to the final run-off, it will really show what a miserable candidate she was for the Corbynite left.

NickPalmer

RandallFlagg said:

MarqueeMark said:

Starmer vs. Nandy is the best shot at power for Labour.

If RLB fails to get to the final run-off, it will really show what a miserable candidate she was for the Corbynite left.

We had a CLP exec this evening, inluding 3 Momentum members (I was a founder member). 2 of us haven't received the email asking for endorsement of the executive's position, even though our direct debits are regularly deducted. I complain about it every year at the Momentum stand at Conference - they alwqays promise to take action and never do. The idea that they're an awesome machine is frankly misplaced.

Wulfrun_Phil

Sarah Owen MP is on Labour NEC and a former GMB political officer. She nominated Nandy. I think that's partly what's causing people to speculate that Nandy will get the GMB nomination.

https://twitter.com/SarahOwen_/status/1215299201170579456

Alistair

Just reading Simulating War before bed and I see @NickPalmer is name checked in the introduction.

kle4

Alistair said:

Just reading Simulating War before bed and I see @NickPalmer is name checked in the introduction.

So he does! Unless there's another Palmer 'until recently a british member of parliament'
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00LUUAENW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#reader_B00LUUAENW

kicorse

Cyclefree said:

I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.

So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.

I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.

But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.

So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?

The rules allow it and you are acting in what you view to be the Labour party's best interests, so I don't see any moral problem at all.

I say that as someone who probably would have voted for Corbyn in 2015, and I would still answer the favourability question with a positive. Mind you, I only joined last month myself (intending to stay long-term) so I don't know how longstanding members would feel.

---

On topic, Nandy's nomination may be tiny but it's still great news.

I was actually a bit disheartened by her campaign launch. The only time in the last year that I didn't think she was extremely impressive. She is very strong on specifics but her team evidently decided to be very broad-brush, so bits sounded like management-waffle. But my guess is that she'll handle Andrew Neil very well and then it will be forgotten.

Gallowgate

Good thread.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1217210053033447430?s=21

Wulfrun_Phil

NickPalmer said:

We had a CLP exec this evening, inluding 3 Momentum members (I was a founder member). 2 of us haven't received the email asking for endorsement of the executive's position, even though our direct debits are regularly deducted. I complain about it every year at the Momentum stand at Conference - they alwqays promise to take action and never do. The idea that they're an awesome machine is frankly misplaced.

So as far as Momentum is concerned:
1. The political executive of Momentum is making as strong recommendation to Momentum members to endorse RLB in a members ballot, expecting that this will further enhance RLB's prospect of winning that ballot.
2. The minority of Momentum members who do not vote for RLB will then come under pressure through loyalty to Momentum the organisation to toe the party line and vote for her in the Labour members ballot. (If not, why hold the ballot in the first place?)

That is entirely in accordance with the principles of top down Leninist democratic centralism. Furthermore, it confirms absolutely that Lansman and the Momentum exec is organising Momentum as an entryist party within a party. Even Militant was not as blatant as this.

isam

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

TheGreenMachine

IanB2 said:

Fifth like Burgon

In the deputy race?

Luckyguy1983

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

I'm hopeful she can reign well into her 100s. The Royal family eats a lot of eggs. A lot. That's what I put it down to.

kle4

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

Foxy

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

Just reading Simulating War before bed and I see @NickPalmer is name checked in the introduction.

So he does! Unless there's another Palmer 'until recently a british member of parliament'
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00LUUAENW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#reader_B00LUUAENW

Sounds an interesting book. As a teen I was quite the fan of simulations, particularly Squad Leader by Avalon Hill (still in my cupboard!) and a host of SPI games I have an old copy of Nick's book somewhere.

For fans of hex based simulations, Joni Nuutinnen has an interesting bunch of games availible as apps on Google play, though novices may find the absence of instructions challenging.

alterego

kle4 said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

The king is very useful in the end game

Gabs3

Gallowgate said:

Good thread.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1217210053033447430?s=21

The EU is once again going to push the UK hard, then Remainers in the UK are going to take the EU's side, which will mean the EU feels it is on strong ground to not back down. It is going to be too far for the Conservative government to sign up to, and we are going to get further away in the relationship then we otherwise would be.

Nobody learns anything.

kicorse

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

Gabs3

On topic, there are a lot of talented women in this race. It is pretty shameful for Labour if in a race between four women and one man, they pick the man, even when he was an architect of their election defeat.

HYUFD

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Classic Hitchens

'I do not much like the British royal family...The Queen, though by far the best of them, takes increasingly frequent plunges into political correctness... As I am a monarchist, whatever should I do or think? My obligations to the Crown are strong and unavoidable, but they have been weakened by the decline of my homeland from a great empire into a small, rather puzzled country on the fringe of Europe.... I think the cornerstone of civilized government is the supremacy of law over power, and I cannot see how that supremacy can be maintained unless you specifically summon God into your constitution by something like the English coronation rite.

...But mainly, these days, the monarchy serves to keep our elected politicians away from the grander, more majestic accoutrements and signs of power. We obey these politicians, and the laws they make, in a grudging sort of way. But we do not usually love or much respect them. They do not, unlike the president of the USA, attempt to embody the country, and this gives us a much greater freedom to criticize them at times of crisis, or if necessary defy their unlawful orders. I think we would revolt if any of our elected leaders bought themselves an equivalent of Air Force One, or insisted on a band playing “Hail to the Chief,” or something similar, as they walked into the room. '

HYUFD

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Gabs3

HYUFD said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Classic Hitchens

'I do not much like the British royal family...The Queen, though by far the best of them, takes increasingly frequent plunges into political correctness... As I am a monarchist, whatever should I do or think? My obligations to the Crown are strong and unavoidable, but they have been weakened by the decline of my homeland from a great empire into a small, rather puzzled country on the fringe of Europe.... I think the cornerstone of civilized government is the supremacy of law over power, and I cannot see how that supremacy can be maintained unless you specifically summon God into your constitution by something like the English coronation rite.

Funny that in states from France to the Roman Empire, law most triumphed over power in their republican periods and vice versa in their monarchist periods.

kicorse

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

viewcode

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

That website is a bit more classy than the usual right-wing bobbins: well, at least more polite and better written, but what the hey. Yes I have a sneaking liking for Hitchens, tho I doubt he'd reciprocate, and I did like that article. I'm going to flagrantly steal his phrase "the cornerstone of civilized government is the supremacy of law over power", and set it against "liberty is freedom under the law" (although I have a horrible suspicion that the latter is a misquote... )

Sunil_Prasannan

alterego said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

The king is very useful in the end game

Monarchy = Socialism!

isam

viewcode said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

That website is a bit more classy than the usual right-wing bobbins: well, at least more polite and better written, but what the hey. Yes I have a sneaking liking for Hitchens, tho I doubt he'd reciprocate, and I did like that article. I'm going to flagrantly steal his phrase "the cornerstone of civilized government is the supremacy of law over power", and set it against "liberty is freedom under the law" (although I have a horrible suspicion that the latter is a misquote... )

My Mum gets annoyed at my quoting Hitchens‘ socially conservative views as if they were The Gospel as they are the same views I stuck two fingers up at when she offered them to me 30 odd years ago!

CarlottaVance

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

< pedant > QE2 is a ship permanently moored in Dubai. QEII is the monarch< /pedant >

IshmaelZ

Sunil_Prasannan said:

alterego said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

The king is very useful in the end game

Monarchy = Socialism!

Testing, Sunil. Very testing.

viewcode

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

That website is a bit more classy than the usual right-wing bobbins: well, at least more polite and better written, but what the hey. Yes I have a sneaking liking for Hitchens, tho I doubt he'd reciprocate, and I did like that article. I'm going to flagrantly steal his phrase "the cornerstone of civilized government is the supremacy of law over power", and set it against "liberty is freedom under the law" (although I have a horrible suspicion that the latter is a misquote... )

My Mum gets annoyed at my quoting Hitchens‘ socially conservative views as if they were The Gospel as they are the same views I stuck two fingers up at when she offered them to me 30 odd years ago!

You flicked the Vs at your mum? Bad isam...

MikeSmithson

Gabs3 said:

On topic, there are a lot of talented women in this race. It is pretty shameful for Labour if in a race between four women and one man, they pick the man, even when he was an architect of their election defeat.

Bollocks. The author of LAB's general election defeat was Corbyn. Nobody else. He was electoral poison who should have been booted out.

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

alterego said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

The king is very useful in the end game

Monarchy = Socialism!

No, monarchy is the essence of conservatism, state control of the economy = socialism

HYUFD

Gabs3 said:

HYUFD said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Classic Hitchens

'I do not much like the British royal family...The Queen, though by far the best of them, takes increasingly frequent plunges into political correctness... As I am a monarchist, whatever should I do or think? My obligations to the Crown are strong and unavoidable, but they have been weakened by the decline of my homeland from a great empire into a small, rather puzzled country on the fringe of Europe.... I think the cornerstone of civilized government is the supremacy of law over power, and I cannot see how that supremacy can be maintained unless you specifically summon God into your constitution by something like the English coronation rite.

Funny that in states from France to the Roman Empire, law most triumphed over power in their republican periods and vice versa in their monarchist periods.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Robespierre would beg to differ

NickPalmer

Alistair said:

Just reading Simulating War before bed and I see @NickPalmer is name checked in the introduction.

Ah, I vaguely remember Sabin's writing, though I've not read that one. I wrote a couple of books on board wargames - one of them sold 100,000 copies, the other was a bit of a pale sequel and sold a lot fewer. Still play...

HYUFD

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

NickPalmer

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

I agree. The Swiss are even more discreet - the presidency rotates among the 7 council members each year, and it's always a struggle to recall who's doing it at the moment, yet they always have someone available for official duties, which in theory is all that th emonarchy really do.

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

NickPalmer

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

We had a CLP exec this evening, inluding 3 Momentum members (I was a founder member). 2 of us haven't received the email asking for endorsement of the executive's position, even though our direct debits are regularly deducted. I complain about it every year at the Momentum stand at Conference - they alwqays promise to take action and never do. The idea that they're an awesome machine is frankly misplaced.

So as far as Momentum is concerned:
1. The political executive of Momentum is making as strong recommendation to Momentum members to endorse RLB in a members ballot, expecting that this will further enhance RLB's prospect of winning that ballot.
2. The minority of Momentum members who do not vote for RLB will then come under pressure through loyalty to Momentum the organisation to toe the party line and vote for her in the Labour members ballot. (If not, why hold the ballot in the first place?)

That is entirely in accordance with the principles of top down Leninist democratic centralism. Furthermore, it confirms absolutely that Lansman and the Momentum exec is organising Momentum as an entryist party within a party. Even Militant was not as blatant as this.

Duh, that's not what I said. My criticism of Momentum is almost precisely the opposite - not that they strong-arm members to do things, but that they are incompetent at even keeping in touch with us. They send me requests to help in by-elections and I note that NEC candidates quote them in support, but I've never had a direct request, let alone an instruction, to vote for anyone. I'm bemused that anyone sees them as an awesome force for good or ill - they are very good at mobilising people to help in elections, and that's about it. As I suspect we are about to discover.

Cyclefree

NickPalmer said:

Alistair said:

Just reading Simulating War before bed and I see @NickPalmer is name checked in the introduction.

Ah, I vaguely remember Sabin's writing, though I've not read that one. I wrote a couple of books on board wargames - one of them sold 100,000 copies, the other was a bit of a pale sequel and sold a lot fewer. Still play...

May be an impertinent question and apologies if so. But any thoughts on my Labour leadership dilemma, as per below?

Thank you.

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

NickPalmer

kicorse said:

Cyclefree said:

I’ve been sent an email by the Jewish Labour Movement saying that if I join them as an ally and register as a Labour friend I can vote in the election for leader and deputy leader.

So should I? I did not vote for them under Corbyn. Indeed I have been very critical of Labour under his leadership.

I would only consider doing so in order to vote for a decent leader (not a crap one) because (a) I am not at all enamoured of Boris - to put it at its absolute mildest; (b) the country - and our democracy - needs a viable opposition party not some half-crazed sect; and (c) I feel strongly that the anti-Semitic culture which has developed in Labour needs removing, regardless of whether one votes Labour or not.

But is it right to do so if I am not a Labour member and only an ex-Labour voter from years ago? It feels like gate-crashing a party. (Plus I don’t want my money to go to a party which then elects a nitwit like RLB.) On the other hand, this is what the rules permit.

So what does the PB ethics committee think, o wise ones?

The rules allow it and you are acting in what you view to be the Labour party's best interests, so I don't see any moral problem at all.

I say that as someone who probably would have voted for Corbyn in 2015, and I would still answer the favourability question with a positive. Mind you, I only joined last month myself (intending to stay long-term) so I don't know how longstanding members would feel.

As a longstanding member I agree. I don't approve of mischievous messing with parties with the intention of causing them trouble, but if they allow non-members to influence their choices (which is arguably what a party seeking new support should do), then it's reasonable to take them up on it. If you felt you could not possibly ever vote Labour regardless of its leader or future conduct, then perhaps not, but I doubt if you're quite as definite as that.

I think you only have a 24-hour window to do it, though.

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

So no tourists visit Versailles? No tourists visit Venice? No tourists visit the Taj Mahal? No tourists visit Rio? No tourists visit Vienna? No tourists visit Dublin? No tourists visit Kilimanjaro?

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

viewcode

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

So no tourists visit Versailles? No tourists visit Venice? No tourists visit the Taj Mahal? No tourists visit Rio? No tourists visit Vienna? No tourists visit Dublin? No tourists visit Kilimanjaro?

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

Yes. Because Versailles has nothing to do with any monarchy. No, siree. No kings ever lived there...

Dura_Ace

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Have you never been to Paris or Rome in the summer? Absolute fucking ghost towns with not a foreign tourist to be seen. They are all in Tonga trying to get a glimpse of the king.

CarlottaVance

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

Alistair said:

Just reading Simulating War before bed and I see @NickPalmer is name checked in the introduction.

Ah, I vaguely remember Sabin's writing, though I've not read that one. I wrote a couple of books on board wargames - one of them sold 100,000 copies, the other was a bit of a pale sequel and sold a lot fewer. Still play...

But any thoughts on my Labour leadership dilemma, as per below?

My tuppence worth.

If your motives are to help create an electable Labour Party who will be an effective opposition and possibly one day a government - why not? Anything that forces the government to raise its game has the be "a good thing".

If on the other hand you want to saddle them with an unelectable dinosaur - why bother, they're more than capable of doing that themselves.

In my view, Starmer or Nandy (Phillips at a pinch - we'd quickly learn one way or the other, though I am warming to her defence of the Union) could fulfil the first criteria. RLB the second. Thornberry somewhat between the two - smart but "posh north London".

viewcode

Prepare to feel really old.

This picture is over twenty years old...

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

So no tourists visit Versailles? No tourists visit Venice? No tourists visit the Taj Mahal? No tourists visit Rio? No tourists visit Vienna? No tourists visit Dublin? No tourists visit Kilimanjaro?

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

Versailles is not the residence of the current French President no.

Though France at least effectively has an imperial presidency anyway, with a vast military parade headed by the President every July and huge trappings and power around the presidency not the deathly dull irrelevant German presidency

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

So no tourists visit Versailles? No tourists visit Venice? No tourists visit the Taj Mahal? No tourists visit Rio? No tourists visit Vienna? No tourists visit Dublin? No tourists visit Kilimanjaro?

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

They do not gain revenue from royal weddings, royal jubilees etc no.

Buildings are separate from the pageantry you get with royalty

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

So no tourists visit Versailles? No tourists visit Venice? No tourists visit the Taj Mahal? No tourists visit Rio? No tourists visit Vienna? No tourists visit Dublin? No tourists visit Kilimanjaro?

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

Versailles is not the residence of the current French President no.

Though France at least effectively has an imperial presidency anyway, with a vast military parade headed by the President every July and huge trappings and power around the presidency not the deathly dull irrelevant German presidency

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

alterego said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

The king is very useful in the end game

Monarchy = Socialism!

No, monarchy is the essence of conservatism, state control of the economy = socialism

Hereditary principle just like Socialist North Korea
Military parades & pageantry just like Socialist North Korea
Head of State with effective jobs for life just like Socialist North Korea

rcs1000

viewcode said:

Prepare to feel really old.

This picture is over twenty years old...

It took me a while to work it out...

speedy2

I'm watching the last democratic debate before Iowa.

Everyone is terrible.
Biden is terrible on policy and sounds most times like he's having a stroke.
Bernie and Warren had a very gringy exchange.
And the rest are even worse.

speedy2

My impression of the debate so far.
With the exception of Sanders they can all put the crowd to sleep.
Joe Biden's enemy is clearly time, the longer a debate lasts the weaker and more confused he becomes on stage, his physical stamina is clearly an issue.

No one will gain votes, but there might be movement between Sanders and Warren, though in which direction it's too early too tell.

Freggles

speedy2 said:

My impression of the debate so far.
With the exception of Sanders they can all put the crowd to sleep.
Joe Biden's enemy is clearly time, the longer a debate lasts the weaker and more confused he becomes on stage, his physical stamina is clearly an issue.

No one will gain votes, but there might be movement between Sanders and Warren, though in which direction it's too early too tell.

I've tuned in for the last ten minutes or so. Steyer has been better than I expected despite his weird random attack on Mayor Pete. Not enough back-and-forth between candidates other than that.

CarlottaVance

And today's OBN goes to....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1217303398636126210?s=20

It may not be pretty (and it will have all the right people clutching their pearls and projectile vomiting.....)....but if it keeps the show on the road.....

Nigelb

CarlottaVance said:

And today's OBN goes to....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1217303398636126210?s=20

It may not be pretty (and it will have all the right people clutching their pearls and projectile vomiting.....)....but if it keeps the show on the road.....

What “deal” ?

rcs1000

CarlottaVance said:

And today's OBN goes to....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1217303398636126210?s=20

It may not be pretty (and it will have all the right people clutching their pearls and projectile vomiting.....)....but if it keeps the show on the road.....

Wait, are we going to give up our nuclear weapons?

Nigelb

Result of Iran’s pledge to hold people responsible for the shooting down....

They arrested the guy who took the video:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51114945

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

HYUFD said:

kicorse said:

kle4 said:

.
Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

I'm guessing that's the point. The absurdity of the monarchy is the strongest argument for keeping it. It minimises the risk of them interfering too much. Hitchens' suggestion seems to be to keep the absurdity without the cost.

In theory I'm a republican, but then I look at real world republics like the USA and France and think best not risk it (also the waste of legislating time). It is possible to have a quiet president (e.g. Germany), but I wouldn't trust us to emulate that.

And who has heard of the president of Germany? Barely even most Germans

Exactly. That's a good thing. But could you see us doing that?

No, its an awful thing, you have an irrelevant, colourless Head of State nobody has heard of, who has little power and who brings in no tourism revenue and you still have to pay for them

Tourists never visit Republics?

Not for anything connected with the Head of State bar the White House for obvious reasons ie the fact the US is the world's most powerful nation

So no tourists visit Versailles? No tourists visit Venice? No tourists visit the Taj Mahal? No tourists visit Rio? No tourists visit Vienna? No tourists visit Dublin? No tourists visit Kilimanjaro?

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

Versailles is not the residence of the current French President no.

Though France at least effectively has an imperial presidency anyway, with a vast military parade headed by the President every July and huge trappings and power around the presidency not the deathly dull irrelevant German presidency

Plenty of countries gain tourist revenue despite not a having monarchy.

Not as much added from their Head of State than with a monarchy

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

alterego said:

kle4 said:

isam said:

Peter Hitchens on QE2 & the Monarchy

‘Her reign must, alas, eventually end. When it does, why not pay the remaining royal figures generous pensions and allow them to slip away into the private lives so many of them crave but cannot lead? Why not have a monarchy, but no monarch? Why not select an elderly, unambitious, self-effacing Regent, close to the end of his or her days, to preside over ceremonies and hand out medals? I offer this as a serious solution. For if we continue as we are, the strain between what we want our kings to be, and what they actually are, will prove too great and we will tumble, accidentally, into becoming a republic.’

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-strain-on-the-british-monarchy

Is that not in effect what he's suggesting? A random ceremonial head of state rather than a ceremonial head of state tied to a particular, albeit flimsy, line of descent is hardly different from a random elected ceremonial head of state.

Personally I've never seen much point in electing a ceremonial head of state, so if we elect one they should be more substantial, and if we're going random then its already pretty random.

Although some jolly clever chap reckons a regency is on the way

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/

Edit: I do like this description though:

The monarch, stripped of all ancient direct power, is now remarkably like the king on a chessboard—almost incapable of offensive action, but preventing others from occupying a crucial square and those around it.

The king is very useful in the end game

Monarchy = Socialism!

No, monarchy is the essence of conservatism, state control of the economy = socialism

Hereditary principle just like Socialist North Korea
Military parades & pageantry just like Socialist North Korea
Head of State with effective jobs for life just like Socialist North Korea

There is nothing socialist about the hereditary principle, that is more conservative even than free market liberalism, socialism is about state control of the economy and France has plenty of military parades and pageantry as does Russia and both are Republics