She has done nothing to deserve respect. In fact, the way she interacts with the public engenders just the opposite - absolute disgust at the way she appears to despise the very people who fund her pampered lifestyle.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Which individuals do you think would make a better head of state? Tony Blair? Vince Cable? Alex Salmond?
With the Supreme Court in place to deal with any Constitutional issues, the need for a separate head of state to the Prime Minister would need to be made.
If it was made, then I doubt that your canard of straw men would have the necessary support to win (Blair and Cable wouldn't get their own party's nominations).
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
The line's construction has been described as resembling a "basic railway" built to a tight budget and incorporating a number of cost-saving features. This is in contrast to the reopened Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link, which was built as a double-track electrified railway from the outset. The difference between the two lines has been claimed by commentators to reflect scepticism toward the Borders Railway, which has existed since proposals were first made in the 1990s, as well as a reluctance to allow the project to become too ambitious. In particular, a 2011 cost-cutting exercise by Transport Scotland resulted in a new project specification which reduced the dynamic passing loops from their planned length of 16 miles (26 km), and failed to future-proof the line by providing for all eight road bridges to be built to single-track width only, including the five bridges on the section between Tynehead and Stow where there were otherwise no other obstacles to doubling of the line.
Similarly, key underbridges on the section as far as Gorebridge were also built to single-track only, notably Bridges 16a and 24a over the A7 at Hardengreen and Gore Glen. This was in contrast to the quality of local roads built over the new line, including the A720, which is wider than required to accommodate possible extra road lanes. A press release by BAM Nuttall indicated that, in addition to the 30 miles (49 km) of new line, the Borders Railway project was funding 6 1⁄5 miles (10 km) of new roads. It was later revealed that these late changes to the rail infrastructure were insisted upon by Network Rail to ensure that the project remained on budget and on time.
In addition, the lack of a siding anywhere on the line could make it difficult for rescue locomotives to recover a broken-down train without causing widespread disruption.
Timetabling[edit]
Whilst the Campaign for Borders Rail acknowledged that the half-hourly weekday stopping service would be useful for commuters, it questions whether this is the best use of a line, which could carry other types of traffic. The organisation had proposed a two-tier service, whereby both a half-hourly stopping train and an hourly limited express service would continue north of Gorebridge.
Failure to continue to Melrose[edit]
The Scott Wilson Report did not consider extending the line beyond Tweedbank due to the increased capital and operating costs of continuing further without a corresponding increase in passenger demand. The Campaign for Borders Rail consider nevertheless that there would have been a strong case for reaching Melrose on the basis of the town's role in Borders tourism.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
She's not. All it would take is for parliament to pass a law to that end.
The Law would have to receive Royal Assent.
Lizzie Windsor doesn't come across as the noble type who would willing sign away her and her descendants meal ticket just because it was the democratic will of the people.
You seem to think that being extremely rude about our head of state is a defiant way of expressing your freedom of thought and independence.
In fact, it reflects far worse on you than anyone else.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Forgetting the personal stuff, why does a head of state with no powers require a form of electoral mandate. A government does, obviously. But a powerless ceremonial figure? What mandate do they need and why?
You mean the "new politics" of the principled, honest and consistent Corbyn are actually nothing but double standards and evasiveness?
I can not believe it. Next you will be telling me that he has been on the same platform as extremists and also called for others not to share platforms with extremists.
No no. It's a subject-dependent noun.
My extremists are highly motivated political campaigners. Your extremists are fascists / terrorists.
My extremists engage in justified civil disobedience. Your extremists engage in lawbreaking / state oppression.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
She's not. All it would take is for parliament to pass a law to that end.
The Law would have to receive Royal Assent.
Lizzie Windsor doesn't come across as the noble type who would willing sign away her and her descendants meal ticket just because it was the democratic will of the people.
You seem to think that being extremely rude about our head of state is a defiant way of expressing your freedom of thought and independence.
In fact, it reflects far worse on you than anyone else.
She has done nothing to deserve respect. In fact, the way she interacts with the public engenders just the opposite - absolute disgust at the way she appears to despise the very people who fund her pampered lifestyle.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Which individuals do you think would make a better head of state? Tony Blair? Vince Cable? Alex Salmond?
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
James Grey MP(Con) on Jezza ""The fact he was there properly dressed, wearing a tie, good on him. Well done him. He is a pacifist and not a royalist but he has gone along and stood in the front row."
I'm inclined to agree - Corbyn clearly made a sartorial effort and got reasonably close to the required look. The sandwiches thing is ludicrous. And he can't win on the anthem.
None of which matters; he'll get monstered.
Sandwichgate is pathetic. I've just seen the "incident" on Sky News. Corbyn and Watson are seemingly offered the lunches by the Costa staff, who are smiling and asking for autographs and photos. It all looks harmless. I agree about the anthem, the bloke is damned if he sings, and damned if he don't. He could, and probably should have made a bit more of an effort on his appearance for the BoB gig, but, again, I don't think anything he does is going to change voters' minds. His supporters will think the sun shines out of his arse, and he's gonna lead us to Utopia, and his detractors will be disgusted at his lack of respect and his batshit crazy leftyness. I'm not a fan of the bloke, and want the Labour party to implode and reinvent itself, but it's fun watching the barminess- from both sides -on here.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
She's not. All it would take is for parliament to pass a law to that end.
You mean pass a law to end the monarchy and make anyone capable of being head of state? That's what I believe in.
Or you mean pass a law to make my daughter the new monarch? That isn't happening and nor would I support that.
That is exactly the point. The reason why he can't win on the anthem is that he is miles out of step with the views of those whose votes Labour needs to win, and many whose votes Labour needs to retain. Most of those voters didn't know much about him until very recently, but they'll be forming their view now and over the next few weeks.
She has done nothing to deserve respect. In fact, the way she interacts with the public engenders just the opposite - absolute disgust at the way she appears to despise the very people who fund her pampered lifestyle.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Which individuals do you think would make a better head of state? Tony Blair? Vince Cable? Alex Salmond?
With the Supreme Court in place to deal with any Constitutional issues, the need for a separate head of state to the Prime Minister would need to be made.
If it was made, then I doubt that your canard of straw men would have the necessary support to win (Blair and Cable wouldn't get their own party's nominations).
Which individuals do you think would be in the frame, then? I wasn't putting up strawman, I was suggesting some ideas for you to answer the question, which you avoided doing.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
She's not. All it would take is for parliament to pass a law to that end.
The Law would have to receive Royal Assent.
Lizzie Windsor doesn't come across as the noble type who would willing sign away her and her descendants meal ticket just because it was the democratic will of the people.
You seem to think that being extremely rude about our head of state is a defiant way of expressing your freedom of thought and independence.
In fact, it reflects far worse on you than anyone else.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Forgetting the personal stuff, why does a head of state with no powers require a form of electoral mandate. A government does, obviously. But a powerless ceremonial figure? What mandate do they need and why?
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
Many Corbyn activists asked "what would Attlee do?" As a patriot who fought at Gallipoli, I'm guessing he'd do up his tie at a memorial.
Somehow I doubt that Major Attlee MP MC would have not sung God Save The Queen.
Isn't the point about the National Anthem that it's the national anthem? It's not the disrespect to the Queen but to the nation that's the issue. If you care about such things.
I think there are more important things to criticise Corbyn about than this. Generally I think that if you turn up at some service it is no more than good manners to behave as is required e.g. taking one's shoes off in a mosque or wearing a kippah in a synagogue etc etc. Your own personal feelings are irrelevant and if they are that important to you then don't go.
BTW since it is Battle of Britain day I just thought I'd share the fact that my father was a Squadron Leader: one of the Few. Sadly no longer with us.
Of COURSE there are far more important things to criticize him for than this. But it's stuff like this which crystallises public mood, where more abstruse (if justified) accusations - his consorting with Islamists - gain no traction.
Most people have no idea why this or that radicalist is so offensive, but they can bloody well see a man disrespecting the Queen and looking badly dressed at an RAF memorial service.
We're not even halfway through his first week and he's made several stupid gaffes already. He is corroding.
OT Sean...
Just back from the shops. Big, BIG poster up at WHSmiths for the Richard & Judy Book Club. The Ice Twins is the 1st book on the graphic.
Kerching
Well done sir.
Yay. Ta.
Lots of big posters on the tube as well.
Isn't that a little low brow for you?
Wait til they are stuck on the wall over every urinal in every motorway service station toilet. Then you know you have arrived. I'd settle for that.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Not singing the national anthem is not disrespectful of anything. Being disrespectful would be not standing, or looking down or talking through it etc. God knows I am not JC's greatest fan, but not even I would criticise him for failing to make a fool of himself by singing a song whose words he does not believe in.
But not doing his tie up, wearing a shirt that is a couple of sizes too big and not wearing a suit is a sin. He stood for election to an office of state and that comes with ceremonial responsibilities that he knew full well about. What's more, he is representing nine million plus Labour voters, if nothing else he should make an effort not to embarrass them.
It is just conceivable that as yet he simply doesn't have the wardrobe. He's 66 & has presumably never needed such clothing before, and he has been a bit busy since being elected.
i presume, however, that despite his mental age of 17, he has learned how to button a shirt?
She has done nothing to deserve respect. In fact, the way she interacts with the public engenders just the opposite - absolute disgust at the way she appears to despise the very people who fund her pampered lifestyle.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Which individuals do you think would make a better head of state? Tony Blair? Vince Cable? Alex Salmond?
With the Supreme Court in place to deal with any Constitutional issues, the need for a separate head of state to the Prime Minister would need to be made.
If it was made, then I doubt that your canard of straw men would have the necessary support to win (Blair and Cable wouldn't get their own party's nominations).
Which individuals do you think would be in the frame, then? I wasn't putting up strawman, I was suggesting some ideas for you to answer the question, which you avoided doing.
I think that any one of around 40 million individuals should be considered the alternative.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Stoke to Derby: my old stomping ground, especially Uttoxeter. Hope you enjoyed it! There's lots of railway interest to see from the train if you know where to look (although less in summer due to vegetation).
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
.
Lizzie Windsor doesn't come across as the noble type who would willing sign away her and her descendants meal ticket just because it was the democratic will of the people.
You seem to think that being extremely rude about our head of state is a defiant way of expressing your freedom of thought and independence.
In fact, it reflects far worse on you than anyone else.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Forgetting the personal stuff, why does a head of state with no powers require a form of electoral mandate. A government does, obviously. But a powerless ceremonial figure? What mandate do they need and why?
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm asking you.
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Jezza - not content with being cast as on the side of Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden, the IRA, Argentina, Hamas - has decided he needs to stand up for Mick Philpot.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
She's not. All it would take is for parliament to pass a law to that end.
The Law would have to receive Royal Assent.
Lizzie Windsor doesn't come across as the noble type who would willing sign away her and her descendants meal ticket just because it was the democratic will of the people.
You seem to think that being extremely rude about our head of state is a defiant way of expressing your freedom of thought and independence.
In fact, it reflects far worse on you than anyone else.
She has done nothing to deserve respect. In fact, the way she interacts with the public engenders just the opposite - absolute disgust at the way she appears to despise the very people who fund her pampered lifestyle.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Which individuals do you think would make a better head of state? Tony Blair? Vince Cable? Alex Salmond?
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Well done. You've persuaded me to keep The Queen in less than 20 words.
Apologies for not responding to SO's question earlier but I was trying to avoid the old PB maxim:
Anyone who posts on here between Mdnight and 8am is SAD Anyone who posts on here between 8am and 4pm is BAD Anyone who posts on here between 4pm and 11.59pm is MAD.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
That's fair enough I'm not a fervent monarchist I just think the alternative is worse.
Afternoon everyone. I see the same Corbyn who would kneel before HM, kiss the hand, and swear a solemn oath, can't be arsed to sing the national anthem (and nicks a couple of free sarnies while he's at it).
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Is the republican case really that Alan Sugar would better represent our nation abroad than Her Majesty?
Yes. Does Obama fail to represent his nation?
There are many republican options out there from directly elected Heads of State who are also Heads of Government, to indirectly elected Heads of State and so on - but it is not the individual that matters alone but the authority of the position they hold. Whoever holds the position will by virtue of it represent the nation.
Her Majesty has been a good Queen, but she could have equally been a bad or mediocre one. We've had plenty in the past. In a republic you replace bad or mediocre rulers, in a monarchy that's not part of the system.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
You could have taken in Crewe CLP headquarters on the corner of station road and gresty road. Wonder what Adrian heald is up to now after his defeat at the hands of mr timpson?
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Is the republican case really that Alan Sugar would better represent our nation abroad than Her Majesty?
Yes. Does Obama fail to represent his nation?
There are many republican options out there from directly elected Heads of State who are also Heads of Government, to indirectly elected Heads of State and so on - but it is not the individual that matters alone but the authority of the position they hold. Whoever holds the position will by virtue of it represent the nation.
Her Majesty has been a good Queen, but she could have equally been a bad or mediocre one. We've had plenty in the past. In a republic you replace bad or mediocre rulers, in a monarchy that's not part of the system.
I would think a lot more Americans think Obama doesn't represent them, than Britons who think the Queen doesn't represent them.
Schengen agreement had come apart with Germany and Austria dealing up their borders. All happening right on cue with the great turning point at the end of this month. What a wretched institution the EU has been!
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Stoke to Derby: my old stomping ground, especially Uttoxeter. Hope you enjoyed it! There's lots of railway interest to see from the train if you know where to look (although less in summer due to vegetation).
The track passes through my village, Leigh (the station's long gone).
It's amazing to me how reasonably intelligent people on here who hate Corbyn for being a lefty, a republican, a trade union loving pacifist etc get so enraged every time he does something that shows he is a lefty or a republican, or a trade union lover, or etc etc
How can you be bothered?
He is a scruffy beggar who looks scruffy in a suit. What a surprise!!
He is an atheist and a republican who doesn't sing God Save The Queen... what did you expect?!
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm asking you.
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Also, what do you mean by legitimacy?
I really can't be bothered to define pretty simple terms for you. Google the term if you don't understand what Legitimacy means.
Accountability would provide a mechanism for replacement when they fail at the role. For example the Windsor Gang continually embarrasses the country, particularly through Lizzie's spouse and his constant stream of racist remarks. Unfortunately, we can't replace her no matter how badly her entourage behaves.
James Grey MP(Con) on Jezza ""The fact he was there properly dressed, wearing a tie, good on him. Well done him. He is a pacifist and not a royalist but he has gone along and stood in the front row."
I'm inclined to agree - Corbyn clearly made a sartorial effort and got reasonably close to the required look. The sandwiches thing is ludicrous. And he can't win on the anthem.
None of which matters; he'll get monstered.
Sandwichgate is pathetic. I've just seen the "incident" on Sky News. Corbyn and Watson are seemingly offered the lunches by the Costa staff, who are smiling and asking for autographs and photos. It all looks harmless. I agree about the anthem, the bloke is damned if he sings, and damned if he don't. He could, and probably should have made a bit more of an effort on his appearance for the BoB gig, but, again, I don't think anything he does is going to change voters' minds. His supporters will think the sun shines out of his arse, and he's gonna lead us to Utopia, and his detractors will be disgusted at his lack of respect and his batshit crazy leftyness. I'm not a fan of the bloke, and want the Labour party to implode and reinvent itself, but it's fun watching the barminess- from both sides -on here.
I'd rather Labour had reinvented itself without the implosion, but otherwise I agree. Labour are to be congratulated for helping to keep us all amused throughout the Silly Season.
BTW 'me too' to your comment earlier today: I fecking despair. I really want a Labour party that I can vote for, as a non-London, white, middle aged, heterosexual, married Englishman. You don't want me in your party, do you?
More than middle-aged, never-married & female but I also am keenly aware of how much Labour really, really, really don't want ordinary people like me to vote for them.
It is a sort of grief. Just have to get over it. (Suck it up, as they say nowadays.)
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
That's fair enough I'm not a fervent monarchist I just think the alternative is worse.
That's simply a trick the monarchists use to defend the indefensible - attempt to get people wanting to offer 40 million people the opportunity to be head of state to narrow it down to one or two (usually awful) choices.
It's basic propaganda based on the logical fallacy of the straw man.
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm asking you.
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Also, what do you mean by legitimacy?
I really can't define pretty simple terms for you. Google the term if you don't understand what Legitimacy means.
Accountability would provide a mechanism for replacement when they fail at the role. For example the Windsor Gang continually embarrasses the country, particularly through Lizzie's spouse and his constant stream of racist remarks. Unfortunately, we can't replace her no matter how badly her entourage behaves.
Sorry old chap but "we" don't want to replace her. And so it seemed last year nor did the Scots.
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Is the republican case really that Alan Sugar would better represent our nation abroad than Her Majesty?
Yes. Does Obama fail to represent his nation?
There are many republican options out there from directly elected Heads of State who are also Heads of Government, to indirectly elected Heads of State and so on - but it is not the individual that matters alone but the authority of the position they hold. Whoever holds the position will by virtue of it represent the nation.
Her Majesty has been a good Queen, but she could have equally been a bad or mediocre one. We've had plenty in the past. In a republic you replace bad or mediocre rulers, in a monarchy that's not part of the system.
I would think a lot more Americans think Obama doesn't represent them, than Britons who think the Queen doesn't represent them.
Maybe, maybe not but the question was abroad. I think many Japanese people would equally think that Obama represents America as the Queen represents the UK.
With the Queen we have been fortunate not just that she has been a sensible monarch but too that she has been healthy. Without meaning to be disrespectful or wishing any ill upon the Queen but at her age I would think that she thoroughly deserves a retirement. For us though we've had many monarchs in the past (and could again in the future) who have spent years infirm or otherwise ill and unable to fulfill public duties. In an ever shrinking world with 24/7 news and global travel this is another reason why I think that someone else could better fulfil the role, when someone who is there by birth alone may not be able to.
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Is the republican case really that Alan Sugar would better represent our nation abroad than Her Majesty?
Yes. Does Obama fail to represent his nation?
There are many republican options out there from directly elected Heads of State who are also Heads of Government, to indirectly elected Heads of State and so on - but it is not the individual that matters alone but the authority of the position they hold. Whoever holds the position will by virtue of it represent the nation.
Her Majesty has been a good Queen, but she could have equally been a bad or mediocre one. We've had plenty in the past. In a republic you replace bad or mediocre rulers, in a monarchy that's not part of the system.
The US example is a good one because there the office of President is seen as separate to the incumbent. Plus there is also the flag which seems to be venerated. I do find it a little odd that those who oppose bending the knee to an individual are fine with pledging allegiance to a bit of cloth, but there we are.
I think one of the problems with having an elected Head of State is that it risks importing politics and by extension divisiveness into a role which necessarily should be above politics. The US manages it but they were starting with a blank slate. I wonder how easy it would be to transplant just one aspect of a carefully balanced system into a somewhat different system with a very different history.
Or - if you make the elected Prime Minister the Head of State (Dair's suggestion) - you run into different problems. Those who did not vote for that person or passionately hated/opposed them would feel unrepresented. Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Have you given up work , or are you a teacher and get shedloads of holidays and service days
I semi-commute from London to the Midlands. I get "creative" on my journey home Friday and back up again on Mondays, though there are Fridays/Mondays when I just do the bog standard New Street to Euston on the West Coast line.
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm asking you.
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Also, what do you mean by legitimacy?
I really can't be bothered to define pretty simple terms for you. Google the term if you don't understand what Legitimacy means.
Accountability would provide a mechanism for replacement when they fail at the role. For example the Windsor Gang continually embarrasses the country, particularly through Lizzie's spouse and his constant stream of racist remarks. Unfortunately, we can't replace her no matter how badly her entourage behaves.
You came up with the term but can't explain what you mean by it for a ceremonial head of state. So no answer then. I thought so.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Stoke to Derby: my old stomping ground, especially Uttoxeter. Hope you enjoyed it! There's lots of railway interest to see from the train if you know where to look (although less in summer due to vegetation).
I saw some old signal boxes at former junctions like Egginton. Also saw all that four intermediate stations had "alight here for..." signs. Eg. Alton Towers, Foxfield Railway (preserved) or Tutbury Castle - the latter of which I spotted from the train.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
It's amazing to me how reasonably intelligent people on here who hate Corbyn for being a lefty, a republican, a trade union loving pacifist etc get so enraged every time he does something that shows he is a lefty or a republican, or a trade union lover, or etc etc
How can you be bothered?
He is a scruffy beggar who looks scruffy in a suit. What a surprise!!
He is an atheist and a republican who doesn't sing God Save The Queen... what did you expect?!
Just because he's living up to [dismal] expectations, doesn't mean we shouldn't all point and laugh everytime he stuffs up.
What else is there to keep us entertained over the next four and a half years...
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Stoke to Derby: my old stomping ground, especially Uttoxeter. Hope you enjoyed it! There's lots of railway interest to see from the train if you know where to look (although less in summer due to vegetation).
The track passes through my village, Leigh (the station's long gone).
I used to know a lass from Church Leigh, and a couple more from Checkley.
Saw two bits of Corbyn coverage today. BBC lead on his speech to the unions. Sky had three negative snippets (tie at half mast, not singing the national anthem and [this is more contentious] allegedly taking food meant for veterans [though he may have been offered it]), as well as some speech coverage.
Just been watching several international TV news channels all focussing on the refugee chaos.. MERKEL .. YOU ARE A COMPLETE DINGBAT..
BBC website reports "German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said on Tuesday there should be ways of "exerting pressure" on states that refused binding quotas, possibly by reducing the amount of EU funding they receive." That sounds really communitarian of them!
I'm probably alone on this, but doesn't going on hunger/water strike at the Serbian border suggest that you're not really looking for a safe haven?
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm asking you.
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Also, what do you mean by legitimacy?
I really can't be bothered to define pretty simple terms for you. Google the term if you don't understand what Legitimacy means.
Accountability would provide a mechanism for replacement when they fail at the role. For example the Windsor Gang continually embarrasses the country, particularly through Lizzie's spouse and his constant stream of racist remarks. Unfortunately, we can't replace her no matter how badly her entourage behaves.
You came up with the term but can't explain what you mean by it for a ceremonial head of state. So no answer then. I thought so.
It's not an arcane term. It's well understood and easy to google to get a definition.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Is the republican case really that Alan Sugar would better represent our nation abroad than Her Majesty?
Yes. Does Obama fail to represent his nation?
There are many republican options out there from directly elected Heads of State who are also Heads of Government, to indirectly elected Heads of State and so on - but it is not the individual that matters alone but the authority of the position they hold. Whoever holds the position will by virtue of it represent the nation.
Her Majesty has been a good Queen, but she could have equally been a bad or mediocre one. We've had plenty in the past. In a republic you replace bad or mediocre rulers, in a monarchy that's not part of the system.
I would think a lot more Americans think Obama doesn't represent them, than Britons who think the Queen doesn't represent them.
Maybe, maybe not but the question was abroad. I think many Japanese people would equally think that Obama represents America as the Queen represents the UK.
With the Queen we have been fortunate not just that she has been a sensible monarch but too that she has been healthy. Without meaning to be disrespectful or wishing any ill upon the Queen but at her age I would think that she thoroughly deserves a retirement. For us though we've had many monarchs in the past (and could again in the future) who have spent years infirm or otherwise ill and unable to fulfill public duties. In an ever shrinking world with 24/7 news and global travel this is another reason why I think that someone else could better fulfil the role, when someone who is there by birth alone may not be able to.
Monarchs have retired in other countries. It is HMQ's view of her role - affected I imagine by the Abdication - which makes her take a different view. But there are mechanisms available for dealing with an infirm/incapable monarch and we may have to invoke them if - and one hopes that this does not happen on a personal level - HMQ does become incapacitated.
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role. But I suspect that most in the country will say that at least here monarchy works in practice if not in theory, certainly while HMQ is alive. At any event, I think there are more important constitutional issues to worry about than this one.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Stoke to Derby: my old stomping ground, especially Uttoxeter. Hope you enjoyed it! There's lots of railway interest to see from the train if you know where to look (although less in summer due to vegetation).
The track passes through my village, Leigh (the station's long gone).
Between Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge? Not sure if I spotted that one!
The US example is a good one because there the office of President is seen as separate to the incumbent. Plus there is also the flag which seems to be venerated. I do find it a little odd that those who oppose bending the knee to an individual are fine with pledging allegiance to a bit of cloth, but there we are.
The cloth represents everyone and can be flown by everyone. The monarchy is those born to it. I see a difference.
Or - if you make the elected Prime Minister the Head of State (Dair's suggestion) - you run into different problems. Those who did not vote for that person or passionately hated/opposed them would feel unrepresented. Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
A head of state who is head of government is not the only system out there, but yes overall I think they would have, by virtue of them holding the post.
In many ways its similar to Cameron, Corbyn etc at the cenotaph or other public events. They're representing the office in the capacity and not themselves alone.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
.
The herd
You mean...the herd that is always right about everything. Good lord, the lefties have given us Brown, Miliband and now Corbyn...don't give yourselves airs and graces.
Just been watching several international TV news channels all focussing on the refugee chaos.. MERKEL .. YOU ARE A COMPLETE DINGBAT..
BBC website reports "German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said on Tuesday there should be ways of "exerting pressure" on states that refused binding quotas, possibly by reducing the amount of EU funding they receive." That sounds really communitarian of them!
I'm probably alone on this, but doesn't going on hunger/water strike at the Serbian border suggest that you're not really looking for a safe haven?
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
It's amazing to me how reasonably intelligent people on here who hate Corbyn for being a lefty, a republican, a trade union loving pacifist etc get so enraged every time he does something that shows he is a lefty or a republican, or a trade union lover, or etc etc
How can you be bothered?
He is a scruffy beggar who looks scruffy in a suit. What a surprise!!
He is an atheist and a republican who doesn't sing God Save The Queen... what did you expect?!
Just because he's living up to [dismal] expectations, doesn't mean we shouldn't all point and laugh everytime he stuffs up.
What else is there to keep us entertained over the next four and a half years...
My point is that he is stuffing up in the eyes of people that will see everything he does as a stuff up... in the bigger scheme of things, he just won a leadership election by a country mile
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Have you given up work , or are you a teacher and get shedloads of holidays and service days
I semi-commute from London to the Midlands. I get "creative" on my journey home Friday and back up again on Mondays, though there are Fridays/Mondays when I just do the bog standard New Street to Euston on the West Coast line.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
That's fair enough I'm not a fervent monarchist I just think the alternative is worse.
That's simply a trick the monarchists use to defend the indefensible - attempt to get people wanting to offer 40 million people the opportunity to be head of state to narrow it down to one or two (usually awful) choices.
It's basic propaganda based on the logical fallacy of the straw man.
But your 40 million idea is nonsense in practice. Look at the States, two Bushes, now perhaps a second Clinton. Their system is not egalitarian, it's based totally on the patronage of the ultra-rich, who winnow the candidates down to Mr Corporation 1 and Mr Corporation 2 then present the public with that so called choice. With our system at least we know its a hereditary Monarch and real political power is held elsewhere.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role.
Then it's a good job you never wrote : -
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Hungarian Border Authorities are now processing migrant claims within one hour..if you don't tick all of the boxes then you go back behind the wire..and told to re apply in a year...Can someone get word to the unfortunates about to embark and Merkel is still a berk
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role. But I suspect that most in the country will say that at least here monarchy works in practice if not in theory, certainly while HMQ is alive. At any event, I think there are more important constitutional issues to worry about than this one.
Agreed completely. That's where I sit on this matter too, in theory I want the monarchy to be abolished but in practice its not an issue I expect resolving in this monarchs lifetime (closest we came to it being debatable was after Diana's death).
I think the vast majority of republicans would acknowledge that the present monarch has done a good job in practice even if we don't think she should have it in theory. If eg Charles messes up as monarch then that's when I see it being more open for debate.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
Stoke to Derby: my old stomping ground, especially Uttoxeter. Hope you enjoyed it! There's lots of railway interest to see from the train if you know where to look (although less in summer due to vegetation).
The track passes through my village, Leigh (the station's long gone).
Between Uttoxeter and Blythe Bridge? Not sure if I spotted that one!
Indeed so - nothing much to see - a house called "Old Station Yard" has the old signal box in their yard but I think it's obscured by trees from the track.
But your 40 million idea is nonsense in practice. Look at the States, two Bushes, now perhaps a second Clinton. Their system is not egalitarian, it's based totally on the patronage of the ultra-rich, who winnow the candidates down to Mr Corporation 1 and Mr Corporation 2 then present the public with that so called choice. With our system at least we know its a hereditary Monarch and real political power is held elsewhere.
Truly mind-boggling stuff.
How do monarchists keep a straight face when they write this drivel.
I saw some old signal boxes at former junctions like Egginton. Also saw all that four intermediate stations had "alight here for..." signs. Eg. Alton Towers, Foxfield Railway (preserved) or Tutbury Castle - the latter of which I spotted from the train.
You keep your eyes peeled! Eggington was the junction for the old GNR line to Derby Friargate (a BR test track until 1989 or so), and a line to Burton on which the old Tutbury Jinny used to run.
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role.
Then it's a good job you never wrote : -
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Except you did.
Well, their argument is that ANY head of state elected would be hated by the people on the opposing sides. Just the degree of hate may vary.
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role.
Then it's a good job you never wrote : -
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Except you did.
In the role of monarch. As is obvious from the context of the post in which I wrote that sentence, if you'd understood it.
You are the one arguing for a republic on the basis that "Lizzie Windsor" is a "sour old crone." I think the argument in favour of a republic is best made regardless of whether the monarch is a good one or a mediocre one and regardless of their age or how they look in public.
Republicanism is a very respectable position to hold. And there are very good arguments in favour of it, many of them to be found in the US. But you weaken those arguments by your pathetic insults at an elderly woman.
Hungarian Border Authorities are now processing migrant claims within one hour..if you don't tick all of the boxes then you go back behind the wire..and told to re apply in a year...Can someone get word to the unfortunates about to embark and Merkel is still a berk
Reapply in a year? You mean reapply with a new Syrian passport when they can get £500 together?
Just been watching several international TV news channels all focussing on the refugee chaos.. MERKEL .. YOU ARE A COMPLETE DINGBAT..
BBC website reports "German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said on Tuesday there should be ways of "exerting pressure" on states that refused binding quotas, possibly by reducing the amount of EU funding they receive." That sounds really communitarian of them!
I'm probably alone on this, but doesn't going on hunger/water strike at the Serbian border suggest that you're not really looking for a safe haven?
The hunger/water strike is being done for the benefit of the TV cameras who are lapping it up.
46100 Royal Scot wasn't ready to take charter trains on the mainline.
Totally off-topic, but I wonder what the new route's weight limits / axle loadings are are? Have they designed it so it can take the largest steam locomotives or any future freight trains?
Replying to myself, and not that anyone will care, but the new line was built to Route Availability (RA) 3 (*). RA runs from 1 to 10, with 1 being capable of only running the lightest trains, whilst 10 can run the heaviest. Therefore it's been built relatively cheaply.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday. And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
You could have taken in Crewe CLP headquarters on the corner of station road and gresty road. Wonder what Adrian heald is up to now after his defeat at the hands of mr timpson?
Was actually my third visit to Crewe station. Did WCML to Crewe then Alderley Edge for a job interview in 2012, and Easter last year did Birmingham-Stafford-Crewe and Stoke to Crewe.
That UNHCR woman on the TV is completely out of her depth.. how the feck did she get that job..what a waste of space... total platitudes central... bet she attended all the seminars on how to sound concerned but never learn how to do a feckin thing about it..nice hairdo and clothes tho..
The US example is a good one because there the office of President is seen as separate to the incumbent. Plus there is also the flag which seems to be venerated. I do find it a little odd that those who oppose bending the knee to an individual are fine with pledging allegiance to a bit of cloth, but there we are.
The cloth represents everyone and can be flown by everyone. The monarchy is those born to it. I see a difference.
Or - if you make the elected Prime Minister the Head of State (Dair's suggestion) - you run into different problems. Those who did not vote for that person or passionately hated/opposed them would feel unrepresented. Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
A head of state who is head of government is not the only system out there, but yes overall I think they would have, by virtue of them holding the post.
In many ways its similar to Cameron, Corbyn etc at the cenotaph or other public events. They're representing the office in the capacity and not themselves alone.
Yes - fair points. I think that the US systems works very well. I'm less convinced that you can pick bits out of it and transplant it elsewhere just like that.
Re your last point, this is true. But it's interesting that we have to have all the leaders there in order to represent the whole nation rather than one figure.
At any event, I think this argument will only become a real one - if at all - when HMQ dies or if there is some appalling scandal similar to the pre-Abdication hoo-ha.
As someone who is definitely a PB Tory, I would like to object to how many non-Tories are being put in my group.
PB Tories are not voters for/members of the Conservative and Unionist Party per se. Its a term like Champagne Socialist or Liberal Intelligensia, it denotes a certain world view or state of mind, and a desire to congregate & commune with others of that ilk.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
Saw two bits of Corbyn coverage today. BBC lead on his speech to the unions. Sky had three negative snippets (tie at half mast, not singing the national anthem and [this is more contentious] allegedly taking food meant for veterans [though he may have been offered it]), as well as some speech coverage.
You are right to say 'allegedly'. This is the allegation “Jeremy and Watson went straight over, they went rushing towards where the free packs were, and dived in. He was obviously rushing off to the TUC and he grabbed two of these bags. They were for the veterans and the volunteers in the red jackets. Jeremy was looking inside them and picking up the sandwiches he wanted. Tom Watson only took one and so did everybody, all the veterans, but Jeremy took two, which I thought was really off.” (made by photographer Steve Back)
It's amazing to me how reasonably intelligent people on here who hate Corbyn for being a lefty, a republican, a trade union loving pacifist etc get so enraged every time he does something that shows he is a lefty or a republican, or a trade union lover, or etc etc
How can you be bothered?
Because he sets low standards and fails to achieve them?
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role.
Then it's a good job you never wrote : -
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Except you did.
Well, their argument is that ANY head of state elected would be hated by the people on the opposing sides. Just the degree of hate may vary.
But the record of ceremonial presidents is that they are not hated, generally they are ignored (which is why I don't really see a need for one at all) but some of them do very good work (Mary Robinson being the obvious example).
They certainly don't have a record of negative public reaction - certainly nothing compared to how the Queen was viewed following the Diana Hysteria and her Annus Horribilis.
You seem to be arguing for abolition and the title going to the PM. I would probably agree with that,
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm asking you.
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Also, what do you mean by legitimacy?
I really can't be bothered to define pretty simple terms for you. Google the term if you don't understand what Legitimacy means.
Accountability would provide a mechanism for replacement when they fail at the role. For example the Windsor Gang continually embarrasses the country, particularly through Lizzie's spouse and his constant stream of racist remarks. Unfortunately, we can't replace her no matter how badly her entourage behaves.
You came up with the term but can't explain what you mean by it for a ceremonial head of state. So no answer then. I thought so.
It's not an arcane term. It's well understood and easy to google to get a definition.
It's actually quite a complicated concept which can mean a number of different things, depending on the context. Interesting though that you are unable to say what you mean by it.
Saw two bits of Corbyn coverage today. BBC lead on his speech to the unions. Sky had three negative snippets (tie at half mast, not singing the national anthem and [this is more contentious] allegedly taking food meant for veterans [though he may have been offered it]), as well as some speech coverage.
You are right to say 'allegedly'. This is the allegation “Jeremy and Watson went straight over, they went rushing towards where the free packs were, and dived in. He was obviously rushing off to the TUC and he grabbed two of these bags. They were for the veterans and the volunteers in the red jackets. Jeremy was looking inside them and picking up the sandwiches he wanted. Tom Watson only took one and so did everybody, all the veterans, but Jeremy took two, which I thought was really off.” (made by photographer Steve Back)
I make no comment.
It really didn't look like that on the Sky News report to me.
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role.
Then it's a good job you never wrote : -
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Except you did.
In the role of monarch. As is obvious from the context of the post in which I wrote that sentence, if you'd understood it.
I understood your context.
I just didn't think you would miss me pointing out the incoherence in your argument by only applying this hypocrisy to one side of the debate.
DAIR.. No I don'tdefend the Windsor Gang.. I have no feelings about any of them at all and would have a go at them if they were being prats... as you will realise.. a prat is a prat whether it be Royal or Scot..A far as Madge is concerned..I just see an 80 odd year old who looks like she would rather be at home reading a book
You're trying to imply that her disgust with the public is a new thing related to her age. It's not, it's how she has been raised, how she actually feels and her scowling has existed for her entire "career" of lumbering the public with a massive Benefits bill.
I've never understood why so called Republicans want to live here, you can stomp your feet all you like the monarchy isn't going anywhere.
No need to be pessimistic. That sort of defeatist attitude may have led one to believe there's no reason Conservatives should be in the country as privatisation of the utilities etc could never happen.
I want to live here as its my nation and I'm proud of it. I'm a republican not as I have any disrespect for the Queen or the country but for example as I see no reason why one day my daughter should be constitutionally incapable of ever becoming head of state.
She's not. All it would take is for parliament to pass a law to that end.
The Law would have to receive Royal Assent.
Lizzie Windsor doesn't come across as the noble type who would willing sign away her and her descendants meal ticket just because it was the democratic will of the people.
You seem to think that being extremely rude about our head of state is a defiant way of expressing your freedom of thought and independence.
In fact, it reflects far worse on you than anyone else.
She has done nothing to deserve respect. In fact, the way she interacts with the public engenders just the opposite - absolute disgust at the way she appears to despise the very people who fund her pampered lifestyle.
I don't recognise her as a head of state, which is a position requiring a form of electoral mandate which is not present. As such she is simply a disgraceful anachronism in urgent need of reform.
Which individuals do you think would make a better head of state? Tony Blair? Vince Cable? Alex Salmond?
Why does the elected head of state HAVE to be a politician. How about Alan Sugar? Or Richard Branson?
Saw two bits of Corbyn coverage today. BBC lead on his speech to the unions. Sky had three negative snippets (tie at half mast, not singing the national anthem and [this is more contentious] allegedly taking food meant for veterans [though he may have been offered it]), as well as some speech coverage.
You are right to say 'allegedly'. This is the allegation “Jeremy and Watson went straight over, they went rushing towards where the free packs were, and dived in. He was obviously rushing off to the TUC and he grabbed two of these bags. They were for the veterans and the volunteers in the red jackets. Jeremy was looking inside them and picking up the sandwiches he wanted. Tom Watson only took one and so did everybody, all the veterans, but Jeremy took two, which I thought was really off.” (made by photographer Steve Back)
I make no comment.
It really didn't look like that on the Sky News report to me.
Walking away with an armful of freebies from a high street chain promotion never looks good.
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role.
Then it's a good job you never wrote : -
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Except you did.
In the role of monarch. As is obvious from the context of the post in which I wrote that sentence, if you'd understood it.
I understood your context.
I just didn't think you would miss me pointing out the incoherence in your argument by only applying this hypocrisy to one side of the debate.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd miss any posts of yours judging by today's offerings.
Have they got intern kids sending these emails? I know it won't be Corbyn so don't take this as a dig but should that email really be opened with "Hiya ..." - that just makes me cringe a bit.
It's amazing to me how reasonably intelligent people on here who hate Corbyn for being a lefty, a republican, a trade union loving pacifist etc get so enraged every time he does something that shows he is a lefty or a republican, or a trade union lover, or etc etc
How can you be bothered?
He is a scruffy beggar who looks scruffy in a suit. What a surprise!!
He is an atheist and a republican who doesn't sing God Save The Queen... what did you expect?!
Thing is, he isn't just any old "lefty, a republican, a trade union loving pacifist" - he's aspiring to be PM. I know it's difficult to look "Prime Ministerial" before you have actually got the job - but whilst it was hard enough to envisage Ed in the role, that was a million times easier than it is with Corbyn.
My sympathy for criticisms f him is also diminished somewhat by the fact that he is in his sixties and therefore old enough to know better.
Comments
If it was made, then I doubt that your canard of straw men would have the necessary support to win (Blair and Cable wouldn't get their own party's nominations).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Similarly, key underbridges on the section as far as Gorebridge were also built to single-track only, notably Bridges 16a and 24a over the A7 at Hardengreen and Gore Glen. This was in contrast to the quality of local roads built over the new line, including the A720, which is wider than required to accommodate possible extra road lanes. A press release by BAM Nuttall indicated that, in addition to the 30 miles (49 km) of new line, the Borders Railway project was funding 6 1⁄5 miles (10 km) of new roads. It was later revealed that these late changes to the rail infrastructure were insisted upon by Network Rail to ensure that the project remained on budget and on time.
In addition, the lack of a siding anywhere on the line could make it difficult for rescue locomotives to recover a broken-down train without causing widespread disruption.
Timetabling[edit]
Whilst the Campaign for Borders Rail acknowledged that the half-hourly weekday stopping service would be useful for commuters, it questions whether this is the best use of a line, which could carry other types of traffic. The organisation had proposed a two-tier service, whereby both a half-hourly stopping train and an hourly limited express service would continue north of Gorebridge.
Failure to continue to Melrose[edit]
The Scott Wilson Report did not consider extending the line beyond Tweedbank due to the increased capital and operating costs of continuing further without a corresponding increase in passenger demand. The Campaign for Borders Rail consider nevertheless that there would have been a strong case for reaching Melrose on the basis of the town's role in Borders tourism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_Railway#Infrastructure_capability
My extremists are highly motivated political campaigners.
Your extremists are fascists / terrorists.
My extremists engage in justified civil disobedience.
Your extremists engage in lawbreaking / state oppression.
10-1 against, maybe :-) ?
He could, and probably should have made a bit more of an effort on his appearance for the BoB gig, but, again, I don't think anything he does is going to change voters' minds.
His supporters will think the sun shines out of his arse, and he's gonna lead us to Utopia, and his detractors will be disgusted at his lack of respect and his batshit crazy leftyness.
I'm not a fan of the bloke, and want the Labour party to implode and reinvent itself, but it's fun watching the barminess- from both sides -on here.
There was a shorter, snappier term but the PB Tories got very touchy about its use, and it's now verboten.
If not, the answer is pretty simple. Legitimacy and Accountability.
'Royal Scot' is RA9 (**), so is far too heavy to run on the line without special dispensation. As is 'Union of South Africa', the loco they actually used at the opening. This means they may not be able to use such locos again in the future or, if they did, there might be restrictions such as speed that interferes with other services.
(*) http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2014/borders-line-campaigners-fight-broken-political-promises-in-scotland/
(**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Royal_Scot_Class
Now you've all gone to sleep I'll shut up.
That's the point.
Did Stoke to Derby for the first time on Friday.
And Shrewsbury to Crewe yesterday
What would the person be accountable for? If the role is purely ceremonial, what is the need for accountability?
Also, what do you mean by legitimacy?
Apologies for not responding to SO's question earlier but I was trying to avoid the old PB maxim:
Anyone who posts on here between Mdnight and 8am is SAD
Anyone who posts on here between 8am and 4pm is BAD
Anyone who posts on here between 4pm and 11.59pm is MAD.
Off to a good start!
There are many republican options out there from directly elected Heads of State who are also Heads of Government, to indirectly elected Heads of State and so on - but it is not the individual that matters alone but the authority of the position they hold. Whoever holds the position will by virtue of it represent the nation.
Her Majesty has been a good Queen, but she could have equally been a bad or mediocre one. We've had plenty in the past. In a republic you replace bad or mediocre rulers, in a monarchy that's not part of the system.
So I will stay my hand for 55 mins. Much better that discussing the pointlessness of discussing Corbyn, again.
How can you be bothered?
He is a scruffy beggar who looks scruffy in a suit. What a surprise!!
He is an atheist and a republican who doesn't sing God Save The Queen... what did you expect?!
Accountability would provide a mechanism for replacement when they fail at the role. For example the Windsor Gang continually embarrasses the country, particularly through Lizzie's spouse and his constant stream of racist remarks. Unfortunately, we can't replace her no matter how badly her entourage behaves.
BTW 'me too' to your comment earlier today:
I fecking despair.
I really want a Labour party that I can vote for, as a non-London, white, middle aged, heterosexual, married Englishman.
You don't want me in your party, do you?
More than middle-aged, never-married & female but I also am keenly aware of how much Labour really, really, really don't want ordinary people like me to vote for them.
It is a sort of grief. Just have to get over it. (Suck it up, as they say nowadays.)
It's basic propaganda based on the logical fallacy of the straw man.
MERKEL .. YOU ARE A COMPLETE DINGBAT..
With the Queen we have been fortunate not just that she has been a sensible monarch but too that she has been healthy. Without meaning to be disrespectful or wishing any ill upon the Queen but at her age I would think that she thoroughly deserves a retirement. For us though we've had many monarchs in the past (and could again in the future) who have spent years infirm or otherwise ill and unable to fulfill public duties. In an ever shrinking world with 24/7 news and global travel this is another reason why I think that someone else could better fulfil the role, when someone who is there by birth alone may not be able to.
I think one of the problems with having an elected Head of State is that it risks importing politics and by extension divisiveness into a role which necessarily should be above politics. The US manages it but they were starting with a blank slate. I wonder how easy it would be to transplant just one aspect of a carefully balanced system into a somewhat different system with a very different history.
Or - if you make the elected Prime Minister the Head of State (Dair's suggestion) - you run into different problems. Those who did not vote for that person or passionately hated/opposed them would feel unrepresented. Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Migrants (not refugees) behind the razor wire at the Serbia-Hungary border shouting "Open, open!"
Hungarian Police "We lost the key"
What else is there to keep us entertained over the next four and a half years...
Saw two bits of Corbyn coverage today. BBC lead on his speech to the unions. Sky had three negative snippets (tie at half mast, not singing the national anthem and [this is more contentious] allegedly taking food meant for veterans [though he may have been offered it]), as well as some speech coverage.
http://www.theopen-road.com/mr-angry/mr-angry Because the NHS is only having £138bn spent on it?
I'm probably alone on this, but doesn't going on hunger/water strike at the Serbian border suggest that you're not really looking for a safe haven?
What's the collective term for Labour supporters - a 'Joke' or a 'Despair'?
The argument in favour of a republic needs to be made independent of the particular person in the role. But I suspect that most in the country will say that at least here monarchy works in practice if not in theory, certainly while HMQ is alive. At any event, I think there are more important constitutional issues to worry about than this one.
In many ways its similar to Cameron, Corbyn etc at the cenotaph or other public events. They're representing the office in the capacity and not themselves alone.
Do you really think people would have accepted Mrs T as Head of State? Or Blair? No matter how many elections they won or how convincingly they won them
Except you did.
I think the vast majority of republicans would acknowledge that the present monarch has done a good job in practice even if we don't think she should have it in theory. If eg Charles messes up as monarch then that's when I see it being more open for debate.
How do monarchists keep a straight face when they write this drivel.
I love the old North Staffs.
Vote could be close - looks like it's within the next 30 to 45 mins.
You are the one arguing for a republic on the basis that "Lizzie Windsor" is a "sour old crone." I think the argument in favour of a republic is best made regardless of whether the monarch is a good one or a mediocre one and regardless of their age or how they look in public.
Republicanism is a very respectable position to hold. And there are very good arguments in favour of it, many of them to be found in the US. But you weaken those arguments by your pathetic insults at an elderly woman.
In many ways its similar to Cameron, Corbyn etc at the cenotaph or other public events. They're representing the office in the capacity and not themselves alone.
Yes - fair points. I think that the US systems works very well. I'm less convinced that you can pick bits out of it and transplant it elsewhere just like that.
Re your last point, this is true. But it's interesting that we have to have all the leaders there in order to represent the whole nation rather than one figure.
At any event, I think this argument will only become a real one - if at all - when HMQ dies or if there is some appalling scandal similar to the pre-Abdication hoo-ha.
This is the allegation
“Jeremy and Watson went straight over, they went rushing towards where the free packs were, and dived in. He was obviously rushing off to the TUC and he grabbed two of these bags. They were for the veterans and the volunteers in the red jackets. Jeremy was looking inside them and picking up the sandwiches he wanted. Tom Watson only took one and so did everybody, all the veterans, but Jeremy took two, which I thought was really off.”
(made by photographer Steve Back)
I make no comment.
They certainly don't have a record of negative public reaction - certainly nothing compared to how the Queen was viewed following the Diana Hysteria and her Annus Horribilis.
I just didn't think you would miss me pointing out the incoherence in your argument by only applying this hypocrisy to one side of the debate.
Politic 101, - you just don’t do it.
Ayes: 325
Noes: 290
My sympathy for criticisms f him is also diminished somewhat by the fact that he is in his sixties and therefore old enough to know better.
(Paraphrase) 'We must stay in the EU to protect workers rights, paid holiday, maternity leave etc'
Why do we need a European superstate to protect British people from their own government? We are a long standing democracy not an African dictatorship
A bloke is called Hilary and that's not the most embarrassing thing about him, takes some doing