politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM finds that just 38% want Charles to be King

SystemSystem Posts: 11,007
edited August 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM finds that just 38% want Charles to be King

We don’t often have Royal Family polling but there is a new ICM survey out in Prospect magazine on what should happen following the Queen’s death.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited August 2017
    First. WE have had governments with 35% of the votes.

    The question that should have been asked is as follows: do you support the freeloaders ?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    I'll support you Charles.
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    We already took back control from them over 300 years ago.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    kle4 said:

    I'll support you Charles.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    We already took back control from them over 300 years ago.
    But they still have power, it only takes one fool to ruin it.

    We dodged a bullet with Edward VIII, but we might not be so lucky next time.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    I'll support you Charles.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    We already took back control from them over 300 years ago.
    But they still have power, it only takes one fool to ruin it.

    We dodged a bullet with Edward VIII, but we might not be so lucky next time.
    They have no true power. If they tried to exercise any, or if we got another Edward VIII, we would change monarchs or become a republic in short order. It's a construct we have made to lend pageantry to our political structure, and if it tried to become more, or disrupted that system, there would be only one winner. We all know that people should not hold power purely on the basis of birth, but we accept a monarchy anyway, so long as it does not impose.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    It has also amused my friends that I'm one of life's cavaliers, I'm actually a roundhead, sans the puritanical nonsense.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    Hasn't it always been that way? Queen regents don't have King consorts.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    Indeed, he just seems like he's having a strop. Fact is people do presume if there is a king and queen, and they are not officially co-rulers, that the king would be the senior of the two, so prince cohort it is. Suck it up, Henrik.

    The half the The Crown I watched before I got bored and stopped seemed mostly Phillip moaning about the same things, in fairness.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    The 46% who want William don't seem to understand the basic concept of a hereditary Monarchy...
    When HM goes, which hopefully won't be soon, but can't be that long, it will be a seismic shock to the national psyche, making Brexit seem like a minor tremor.
    Most people under 70 can remember no other Monarch. You have to be 80+ to recall another as an adult.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    I'll support you Charles.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    We already took back control from them over 300 years ago.
    But they still have power, it only takes one fool to ruin it.

    We dodged a bullet with Edward VIII, but we might not be so lucky next time.
    They have no true power. If they tried to exercise any, or if we got another Edward VIII, we would change monarchs or become a republic in short order. It's a construct we have made to lend pageantry to our political structure, and if it tried to become more, or disrupted that system, there would be only one winner. We all know that people should not hold power purely on the basis of birth, but we accept a monarchy anyway, so long as it does not impose.
    But that would take time, just imagine if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, we would have had seen the government fall and a 1937 general election called.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    edited August 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    I see your Philip and raise you an Albert in 1840.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    Hasn't it always been that way? Queen regents don't have King consorts.
    That's the old thinking, when things like primogeniture were in vogue.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    No trump thread....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Lost in trump going nuclear, it seems like he is going to sack bannan.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    I do hope George turns out to be gay, so we have the prince and prince of Wales and then a pair of kings.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No trump thread....

    Well if it were up to me, I'd have done a thread based on this tweet, headlined 'Another tweet that hasn't aged well from Andrew Lilico'

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/825051982884982789
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    I'll support you Charles.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    We already took back control from them over 300 years ago.
    But they still have power, it only takes one fool to ruin it.

    We dodged a bullet with Edward VIII, but we might not be so lucky next time.
    They have no true power. If they tried to exercise any, or if we got another Edward VIII, we would change monarchs or become a republic in short order. It's a construct we have made to lend pageantry to our political structure, and if it tried to become more, or disrupted that system, there would be only one winner. We all know that people should not hold power purely on the basis of birth, but we accept a monarchy anyway, so long as it does not impose.
    But that would take time, just imagine if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, we would have had seen the government fall and a 1937 general election called.
    Well, we do have the FTPA now - doesn't that prevent a monarch from calling an election if they wanted now, in effect? So they're ability to be difficult would be reduced.

    But you're right that it would not be without a great deal of trouble, if it came to that. But I am skeptical of how much - if a monarch played silly buggers with parliament, how long could that really go on? They would not be in a position where forced abdication was desired unless their public popularity was plummeting, and parliament could very quickly declare an end to a king. Sure, no one to sign the bill, but the High Court to try Charles I wasn't legal either, it didn't stop it, and then it became the new legal.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    I'm a big fan of Cromwell as a historical figure. A very complex, contradictory figure in many ways. I've always like Clarendon's summation of him.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
    Honestly, bunch of parasites, put the royals on the benefit cap.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No trump thread....

    Trump inserts himself into everything unwanted, it will no doubt be much dominated by him regardless.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    Amusingly, my Tory MP has recently released a self published novel set in the English Civil War and featuring a fictional regicide who has Cromwell as his son's godfather. I guess he might have republican tendencies, I shall have to keep a close eye.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    Hasn't it always been that way? Queen regents don't have King consorts.
    Philip II of Spain was King of England while he was married to Mary 1554 to 1558.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited August 2017
    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    I'm a big fan of Cromwell as a historical figure. A very complex, contradictory figure in many ways. I've always like Clarendon's summation of him.
    I've actually half written a civil war themed thread in my head, which should be published in the first week of September.

    Précis is Leaving the EU = The Commonwealth of England

    Brexiteers = Cavaliers

    Remainers = Roundheads

    Boris Johnson = Oliver Cromwell, sans the posthumous execution.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    I'm a big fan of Cromwell as a historical figure. A very complex, contradictory figure in many ways. I've always like Clarendon's summation of him.
    I've actually half written a civil war themed thread in my head, which should be published in the first week of September.

    Précis is Leaving the EU = The Commonwealth of England

    Brexiteers = Cavaliers

    Remainers = Roundheads

    Boris Johnson = Oliver Cromwell, sans the posthumous execution.
    Hey! I like to see myself as a Lefty Cavalier! SeanT with a social conscience if you would...(although less successful with the ladies). :)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,645
    edited August 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    I'm a big fan of Cromwell as a historical figure. A very complex, contradictory figure in many ways. I've always like Clarendon's summation of him.
    I've actually half written a civil war themed thread in my head, which should be published in the first week of September.

    Précis is Leaving the EU = The Commonwealth of England

    Brexiteers = Cavaliers

    Remainers = Roundheads

    Boris Johnson = Oliver Cromwell, sans the posthumous execution.
    How can the Commonwealth be Leaving the EU if Remainers are Roundheads, eg the winners who created the Commonwealth?

    Or is the idea Johnson would take over and turn post Brexit UK into a position where it is very similar in look and feel to pre-Brexi (in the way the Protector became more regal in style), figuratively by keeping us in the single market and not reducing immigration?

    I guess I shall have to wait and see.

    Arrivederci

    I've actually written a fantasy story with a lead character named Cromwell (as I am terrible with names). If it is ever picked up I guess a name change is in order for the international release.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    I'm a big fan of Cromwell as a historical figure. A very complex, contradictory figure in many ways. I've always like Clarendon's summation of him.
    I've actually half written a civil war themed thread in my head, which should be published in the first week of September.

    Précis is Leaving the EU = The Commonwealth of England

    Brexiteers = Cavaliers

    Remainers = Roundheads

    Boris Johnson = Oliver Cromwell, sans the posthumous execution.
    How can the Commonwealth be Leaving the EU if Remainers are Roundheads, eg the winners who created the Commonwealth?

    Or is the idea Johnson would take over and turn post Brexit UK into a position where it is very similar in look and feel to pre-Brexi (in the way the Protector became more regal in style), figuratively by keeping us in the single market and not reducing immigration?

    I guess I shall have to wait and see.
    It's still a work in progress, but something like that, based on Mike's piece the other day


    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/08/13/theres-a-case-for-saying-that-johnsons-the-best-equipped-to-lead-the-tories-to-brexit-and-beyond/
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
    Honestly, bunch of parasites, put the royals on the benefit cap.
    Impossible to say this without sounding like a dear little old cockney lady in a vox pop but they do work bloody hard, esp as they are both in their 90s, at what must be one of the world's most boring jobs. If I were Charles I would try to negotiate my way out by offering to terminate the monarchy if I got to keep 10% of the assets and a couple of palaces.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    fine people on both sides

    https://twitter.com/KLR_Editor/status/897590743749070848
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
    Honestly, bunch of parasites, put the royals on the benefit cap.
    Impossible to say this without sounding like a dear little old cockney lady in a vox pop but they do work bloody hard, esp as they are both in their 90s, at what must be one of the world's most boring jobs. If I were Charles I would try to negotiate my way out by offering to terminate the monarchy if I got to keep 10% of the assets and a couple of palaces.
    The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh do a lot of hard work.

    But I'm thinking of people like Prince Andrew.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lost in trump going nuclear, it seems like he is going to sack bannan.

    'He is not a racist'

    Always a good sign when your employer says that out of the blue!
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/897570138706333696

    That went well
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    A shame there's no question about how many want a republic.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    edited August 2017
    Interesting timing by the Commandant of The United States Marine Corp

    https://twitter.com/GenRobertNeller/status/897591648007446529
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lost in trump going nuclear, it seems like he is going to sack bannan.

    Souce? Please let it be so.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    619 said:

    fine people on both sides

    https://twitter.com/KLR_Editor/status/897590743749070848

    Holy feck, that article is breathtaking.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lost in trump going nuclear, it seems like he is going to sack bannan.

    Souce? Please let it be so.
    He was asked about it and all he could say was he came on board very late but liked him and by the way he wasn't a racist. It couldn't have been any less convincing response.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lost in trump going nuclear, it seems like he is going to sack bannan.

    Souce? Please let it be so.
    He was asked about bannon in the presss conference. Said 'he isnt a racist' and 'lets see' if he stays in the job.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Lost in trump going nuclear, it seems like he is going to sack bannan.

    Souce? Please let it be so.
    Only to be replaced by David Duke as Trump's Chief Strategist.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    619 said:

    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"

    No, he didn't say that. Nothing like easily nailed lies to weaken a case.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited August 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    619 said:

    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"

    No, he didn't say that. Nothing like easily nailed lies to weaken a case.
    The media need to stick to the facts. The cnn contributor has just a race charged way to criticise trump calling it "good old white male outrage". Not helpful.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Ishmael_Z said:

    619 said:

    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"

    No, he didn't say that. Nothing like easily nailed lies to weaken a case.
    So of there was fatal violence at a britains first march and Theresa May defended the people on the March as not all being racist, you wouldnt think that to be massive lie?
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
    Honestly, bunch of parasites, put the royals on the benefit cap.
    Impossible to say this without sounding like a dear little old cockney lady in a vox pop but they do work bloody hard, esp as they are both in their 90s, at what must be one of the world's most boring jobs. If I were Charles I would try to negotiate my way out by offering to terminate the monarchy if I got to keep 10% of the assets and a couple of palaces.
    The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh do a lot of hard work.

    But I'm thinking of people like Prince Andrew.
    Monarchy is a socialist institution!

    "What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry.

    Consider:

    * A job for life - a key socialist principle in action!
    * Hereditary principle - socialist dynasties such as the Kennedys in the US, Nehru-Gandhis in India, and the Kims in north Korea!
    * Pomp and circumstance - choreographed parades like Trooping the Colour, just like in socialist North Korea!

    Therefore, I put it to you that Monarchy is a socialist institution!
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    619 said:

    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"

    Oskar Schindler?
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    brendan16 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
    The white nationalists doing their Britain first style marcjes dont care about the minutae of history

    Certaim confederate leaders are racist icons because they supported and fought for slavery. Tryomg to pretend the marchers arent the same sort of racists who go one britain first and NF marches is disengenous
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
    War! The Republic is crumbling under attacks by the ruthless Sith Lord, Count Dooku. There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere. :)
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/897163175128379392
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited August 2017
    619 said:

    brendan16 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
    The white nationalists doing their Britain first style marcjes dont care about the minutae of history

    Certaim confederate leaders are racist icons because they supported and fought for slavery. Tryomg to pretend the marchers arent the same sort of racists who go one britain first and NF marches is disengenous
    Robert E Lee's position on slavery was rather ambivalent - he sided with his home state in the war and whereas others may have been motivated by that issue he was seemingly not. Washington and Jefferson fully supported slavery and owned slaves.

    So if it's about positions taken on slavery if Lees statues come down more logically so should theirs?

    Churchill was hardly the most politically correct person - his views on Muslims and India would be considered beyond the pale now and make Trump seem like Polly Toynbee. If we view historical figures in today's context and attitudes should we be thinking about taking down his statues as well?

    Because in that sense where does this end?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,378
    brendan16 said:

    619 said:

    brendan16 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
    The white nationalists doing their Britain first style marcjes dont care about the minutae of history

    Certaim confederate leaders are racist icons because they supported and fought for slavery. Tryomg to pretend the marchers arent the same sort of racists who go one britain first and NF marches is disengenous
    Robert E Lee's position on slavery was rather ambivalent - he sided with his home state in the war and whereas others may have been motivated by that issue he was seemingly not. Washington and Jefferson fully supported slavery and owned slaves.

    So if it's about positions taken on slavery if Lees statues come down more logically so should theirs?

    Churchill was hardly the most politically correct person - his views on Muslims and India would be considered beyond the pale now and make Trump seem like Polly Toynbee. If we view historical figures in today's context and attitudes should we be thinking about taking down his statues as well?

    Because in that sense where does this end?
    That has already been discussed, at length below. A brief perusal of this article might give you an idea of why those comparisons don't stand up:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Charles does better with Tories and slightly better with Leavers, reflecting the fact the support for his becoming King is highest amongst pensioners who also are most likely to vote Tory and were most likely to vote Leave. As Charles is a pensioner himself he can probably survive as he will be around as long as they are and when he dies or abdicates William can then move the monarchy to appeal more to the middle aged and young who clearly would prefer him to succeed the Queen than his father
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Philip_Thompson said:

    A shame there's no question about how many want a republic.

    16% back neither, about the same as normally want a Republic in most polls
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    So TSE is anti monarchy and anti Brexit and anti grammar school, is there any more confirmation needed he is not really a Tory? Free market liberal maybe but Tory no
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    brendan16 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
    All this tearing down statues business is bound to eventually lead to mindless vandalism whether the statues are of slavery supporters or not, as far as I am concerned history should be respected and statues left in place even if the person commemorated has a rather dubious backstory. Short of recently toppled dictators whose statues were a symbol of their power in other cases let historians judge the record of those on the plinths. Even Mandela, great man that he was, was involved in terrorism in his youth and his wife of course put burning tyres around opponents necks, rightly nobody is suggesting removing his statue from Parliament Square. Jomo Kenyatta has a big statue in Nairobi and the Mau Mau he led committed pretty brutal murders of white farmers in Kenya
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    Hasn't it always been that way? Queen regents don't have King consorts.
    Philip II of Spain was King of England while he was married to Mary 1554 to 1558.
    In an alternate dimension somewhere the English monarch became Holy Roman Emperor.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    The Queen should take well deserved retirement. In fact she should have done some time ago. Hand over to Charles who gets a few years until he retires under the new retirements policy then pass to William. It seems cruel not to make Charles king. He's been waiting so long.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,847
    HYUFD said:

    brendan16 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
    All this tearing down statues business is bound to eventually lead to mindless vandalism whether the statues are of slavery supporters or not, as far as I am concerned history should be respected and statues left in place even if the person commemorated has a rather dubious backstory. Short of recently toppled dictators whose statues were a symbol of their power in other cases let historians judge the record of those on the plinths. Even Mandela, great man that he was, was involved in terrorism in his youth and his wife of course put burning tyres around opponents necks, rightly nobody is suggesting removing his statue from Parliament Square. Jomo Kenyatta has a big statue in Nairobi and the Mau Mau he led committed pretty brutal murders of white farmers in Kenya
    Sadly it looks as if the US culture wars are not going to end anytime soon. It will probably get a lot worse before it gets better too, there's going to be a lot more clashes between the extreme elements of right and left before sufficient numbers of people in the middle say that enough is enough.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,919
    RobD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    Well if Prince Philip didn't become King when Her Majesty became Queen, there's a precedent there.
    Hasn't it always been that way? Queen regents don't have King consorts.
    Philip II of Spain was King of England while he was married to Mary 1554 to 1558.
    In an alternate dimension somewhere the English monarch became Holy Roman Emperor.
    In an alternate dimension not too far removed from this one I am the current head of what instead became the Hapsburg Empire.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    On topic,

    When was the polling conducted? In the immediate aftermath of the latest Diana Grief Fest documentary?

    Off topic - the Sun seems happy enough:

    FOR all the bluster from EU fanatics — who would rather everyone was worse off than see the UK get a good deal — there are enough sensible figures in and around Brussels to ensure that Brexit talks are conducted seriously and properly.

    Which is why David Davis is clearly adopting the right approach.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4252754/there-are-enough-sensible-figures-in-brussels-to-ensure-that-brexit-talks-are-conducted-properly/
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    619 said:

    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"

    It was common during and after the war to distinguish between good Germans (such as Rommel) and Nazis.

  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Surely the distinguishing feature of a monarchy is there is no vote on who becomes king.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Why does the i newspaper have the flag upside down?

    https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/z6LMvtCQdu3D1P1kODoM_i.JPG

    (and why does Sky News's CDN have such horrible URLs?)
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Michael Gove seems to have endangered arts teaching in state schools. Since Gove sought to promote the liberal arts, this might be filed under unintended consequences. The problem seems to be caused by budget cuts allied to the decoupling of AS from A-levels which has led to reduced uptake of arts and languages.

    Otoh, as French and German are under threat, perhaps a harbinger of his views on Brexit.

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/education/level-reforms-budget-cuts-killed-off-arts-state-schools/
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,847
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Why does the i newspaper have the flag upside down?

    https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/z6LMvtCQdu3D1P1kODoM_i.JPG

    (and why does Sky News's CDN have such horrible URLs?)

    Because newspapers don't have sub editors any more!

    Because it's way cheaper to use a CDN than host a modern news site full of video that needs to scale and not fall over when a big news day comes up. Humans never see the URLs any more so they have random short addresses that take up a lot less space in the database.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    619 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    619 said:

    Here's the question for journos to ask every Republican: "Do you agree with the President that some Nazis are good people?"

    No, he didn't say that. Nothing like easily nailed lies to weaken a case.
    So of there was fatal violence at a britains first march and Theresa May defended the people on the March as not all being racist, you wouldnt think that to be massive lie?
    A stupid and pointless attempt at an analogy.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897671101609889792
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,847
    CarlottaVance said:

    ttps://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897671101609889792

    Someone has definitely lost his marbles...
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    FF43 said:

    The Queen should take well deserved retirement. In fact she should have done some time ago. Hand over to Charles who gets a few years until he retires under the new retirements policy then pass to William. It seems cruel not to make Charles king. He's been waiting so long.

    She'd be breaking the vow she made to the country all those years ago. I don't think she would want to do that.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    Focussing on Chapman's predictions, rather than personal observations:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897676898679107585
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    So we can add "United Ireland" and "return of Elgin Marbles" to "sackings at BBC" and "end to lobby system" to The Democrats burgeoning manifesto - of course in addition to "No Brexit"....I'm sure I've missed some....
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    CarlottaVance said:

    Focussing on Chapman's predictions, rather than personal observations:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897676898679107585

    I still chuckle when I see the name. The democrats, founded to overturn the democratic will of the electorate.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    CarlottaVance said:

    So we can add "United Ireland" and "return of Elgin Marbles" to "sackings at BBC" and "end to lobby system" to The Democrats burgeoning manifesto - of course in addition to "No Brexit"....I'm sure I've missed some....

    No mention of owls yet.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The Queen should take well deserved retirement. In fact she should have done some time ago. Hand over to Charles who gets a few years until he retires under the new retirements policy then pass to William. It seems cruel not to make Charles king. He's been waiting so long.

    She'd be breaking the vow she made to the country all those years ago. I don't think she would want to do that.
    I suspect in her view it's not in her hands, but a higher authority's.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,847
    RobD said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Focussing on Chapman's predictions, rather than personal observations:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897676898679107585

    I still chuckle when I see the name. The democrats, founded to overturn the democratic will of the electorate.
    Overturn something that 17 million people voted for, and give away 5,500 square miles of British territory where 1.8m British citizens live. Interesting proposals.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    OGH tweets:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/897680976557617153

    Not sure that many are taking Mr Chapman too seriously.....
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Flattered though I am by the high level of public support, I should point out there is no vacancy right now.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    Why is Charles so unpopular out of interest? I feel kind of 'meh' about him becoming King.

    In my case, it is the (unchallenged as far as I know) claim that he married Diana with the intention of carrying on business as usual with Camilla throughout the engagement and afterwards. Most of us have behaved appallingly in the sphere of sexual relations at some stage in our lives, but that is taking chumpishness to an entirely new level.
    Wow....

    That's awful, if true. Poor Diana.

    I wonder if Camilla will become Queen when Charles becomes King? Camilla is a divorcee, so I would think that would put a spanner in the works in regards to that....
    Now that is another royalist headache to come, apparently. Legally I think they've established that the wife of a king is a queen, end of, but there has been great reluctance given perceived attitudes to Charles and Camilla, and the plan was for her to be given some other title, but Charles is adamant he wants her as Queen.

    And in terms of marital happiness at the least that's the best option, given we've seen how people can moan about these things recently.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/royal-snub-as-prince-of-denmark-refuses-to-be-buried-with-his-queen
    The marriage was legally morganatic: Camilla (who is a wonderful woman by the way - reminds me of my mother) is, and will remain, the Duchess of Cornwall not become Queen. Charles wants her to be crowned, but I suspect that is unlikely. (And she is fine with that, doesn't really like all the malarkey, but tolerates it so that she can be with the man she loves. It's all really rather sweet actually).
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    I suspect you'll be waiting a while:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897684192615641088
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    I'll support you Charles.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    Take back control from our unelected masters.

    We already took back control from them over 300 years ago.
    But they still have power, it only takes one fool to ruin it.

    We dodged a bullet with Edward VIII, but we might not be so lucky next time.
    They have no true power. If they tried to exercise any, or if we got another Edward VIII, we would change monarchs or become a republic in short order. It's a construct we have made to lend pageantry to our political structure, and if it tried to become more, or disrupted that system, there would be only one winner. We all know that people should not hold power purely on the basis of birth, but we accept a monarchy anyway, so long as it does not impose.
    But that would take time, just imagine if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, we would have had seen the government fall and a 1937 general election called.
    Well, we do have the FTPA now - doesn't that prevent a monarch from calling an election if they wanted now, in effect? So they're ability to be difficult would be reduced.

    But you're right that it would not be without a great deal of trouble, if it came to that. But I am skeptical of how much - if a monarch played silly buggers with parliament, how long could that really go on? They would not be in a position where forced abdication was desired unless their public popularity was plummeting, and parliament could very quickly declare an end to a king. Sure, no one to sign the bill, but the High Court to try Charles I wasn't legal either, it didn't stop it, and then it became the new legal.
    Monarchs don't sign Acts into law anymore. I think it is an automatic part of the process - she can't withhold approval.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I've changed my profile picture, if it wasn't clear where my views lie when it comes to the monarchy.

    TSE loves the republic, and democracy. :smiley:
    Honestly, bunch of parasites, put the royals on the benefit cap.
    If you gave them back the Crown Estate they'd probably go for that.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,847
    edited August 2017
    Air Berlin bailed out by German taxpayers to the tune of €150m, to avoid a collapse as they file for bankruptcy.

    Etihad put in $250m less than six months ago which has all gone, that €150m is not going to be coming back.

    Do EU State Aid rules not apply when there's an election due?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airberlin-lufthansa-ministry-idUKKCN1AV15I
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,847
    CarlottaVance said:

    I suspect you'll be waiting a while:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897684192615641088

    He will be waiting a long time indeed for that one.

    More worrying is that he's up and tweeting before 8am in Athens. Looks like we are in for another day of the live breakdown.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Michael Gove seems to have endangered arts teaching in state schools. Since Gove sought to promote the liberal arts, this might be filed under unintended consequences. The problem seems to be caused by budget cuts allied to the decoupling of AS from A-levels which has led to reduced uptake of arts and languages.

    Otoh, as French and German are under threat, perhaps a harbinger of his views on Brexit.

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/education/level-reforms-budget-cuts-killed-off-arts-state-schools/

    Worth pointing out, however, that that article has flaws in it. Can't speak about the decline in takeup as I haven't seen it personally, although it seems probable that where AS levels disappear numbers will drop in all subjects. But it does say the subjects have been overhauled 'with the help of universities.' Which is bollocks. What OFQUAL did was take academic advice, then ignored it and did what they wanted to anyway.

    That's how history has ended up with more blind source questions at A-level - which are the second most pointless thing in the known universe, just behind BoJo's chastity belt - when the universities wanted them ditched altogether.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    Sandpit said:

    Air Berlin bailed out by German taxpayers to the tune of €150m, to avoid a collapse as they file for bankruptcy.

    Etihad put in $250m less than six months ago which has all gone, that €150m is not going to be coming back.

    Do EU State Aid rules not apply when there's an election due?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airberlin-lufthansa-ministry-idUKKCN1AV15I

    You can't just cherry-pick the best bits, Herr Cameron, it comes as a whole package - except when it doesn't.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,267
    Charles will be a disaster.

    The Commonwealth realms will drop like ninepins, and such is his personality he could even cause a constitutional crisis here.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Why does the i newspaper have the flag upside down?

    https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/z6LMvtCQdu3D1P1kODoM_i.JPG

    (and why does Sky News's CDN have such horrible URLs?)

    Isn't that the naval distress signal?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Air Berlin bailed out by German taxpayers to the tune of €150m, to avoid a collapse as they file for bankruptcy.

    Etihad put in $250m less than six months ago which has all gone, that €150m is not going to be coming back.

    Do EU State Aid rules not apply when there's an election due?

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airberlin-lufthansa-ministry-idUKKCN1AV15I

    You can't just cherry-pick the best bits, Herr Cameron, it comes as a whole package - except when it doesn't.
    2% deficit. Set in stone. Unless you're France....or Germany.....
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    ttps://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897671101609889792

    Someone has definitely lost his marbles...
    Parliament paid £350,000 for the marbles on behalf of the nation.

    Unless it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt they were stolen then they are legally British (the dispute is whether the Turks had the right to sell the marbles by right of conquest - Elgin bought them from the Sultan).

    So it's not so much "return" as a gift or sale by the British

    (But this is entirely a political fiction created by Melina Mercori as she need an "issue" to own to further her own career)
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,924
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897671101609889792

    Remembering the promise of free metatxa last night?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,924
    ydoethur said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Michael Gove seems to have endangered arts teaching in state schools. Since Gove sought to promote the liberal arts, this might be filed under unintended consequences. The problem seems to be caused by budget cuts allied to the decoupling of AS from A-levels which has led to reduced uptake of arts and languages.

    Otoh, as French and German are under threat, perhaps a harbinger of his views on Brexit.

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/education/level-reforms-budget-cuts-killed-off-arts-state-schools/

    Worth pointing out, however, that that article has flaws in it. Can't speak about the decline in takeup as I haven't seen it personally, although it seems probable that where AS levels disappear numbers will drop in all subjects. But it does say the subjects have been overhauled 'with the help of universities.' Which is bollocks. What OFQUAL did was take academic advice, then ignored it and did what they wanted to anyway.

    That's how history has ended up with more blind source questions at A-level - which are the second most pointless thing in the known universe, just behind BoJo's chastity belt - when the universities wanted them ditched altogether.
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is a ‘blind source question’?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    NEW THREAD
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    OldKingCole said:

    ydoethur said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Michael Gove seems to have endangered arts teaching in state schools. Since Gove sought to promote the liberal arts, this might be filed under unintended consequences. The problem seems to be caused by budget cuts allied to the decoupling of AS from A-levels which has led to reduced uptake of arts and languages.

    Otoh, as French and German are under threat, perhaps a harbinger of his views on Brexit.

    https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/education/level-reforms-budget-cuts-killed-off-arts-state-schools/

    Worth pointing out, however, that that article has flaws in it. Can't speak about the decline in takeup as I haven't seen it personally, although it seems probable that where AS levels disappear numbers will drop in all subjects. But it does say the subjects have been overhauled 'with the help of universities.' Which is bollocks. What OFQUAL did was take academic advice, then ignored it and did what they wanted to anyway.

    That's how history has ended up with more blind source questions at A-level - which are the second most pointless thing in the known universe, just behind BoJo's chastity belt - when the universities wanted them ditched altogether.
    Forgive my ignorance, but what is a ‘blind source question’?
    Where you have a source you haven't seen before and have to answer questions on it as part of an exam.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    The Queen should take well deserved retirement. In fact she should have done some time ago. Hand over to Charles who gets a few years until he retires under the new retirements policy then pass to William. It seems cruel not to make Charles king. He's been waiting so long.

    She'd be breaking the vow she made to the country all those years ago. I don't think she would want to do that.
    Probably but Elizabeth is not doing a favour to her son by hanging on.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited August 2017
    brendan16 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Is funny to switch over from cnn to fox news...It is like there were two different trump press conferences. Fox talking about confederate symbols and digging up dead confederate soldiers.

    Almost all of the Confederate leaders of course were Democrats - it was the party of slavery and of the continued oppression of black people in the south post the civil war until the 60s. So maybe Fox should be less concerned and CNN should be more unhappy?

    The question of course is where does this end - almost all the founding fathers were slave owners and what might now be termed white supremacists. Are the statues of Thomas Jefferson - who wrote the Declaration of independence - and George Washington to be removed as well?

    Apparently the Lincoln Memorial was defaced today too along with a statue of a Union soldier in Maryland. Do some protestors even know what they are protesting against or for?
    Statues to Washington from aren't put up to celebrate their subdigation of black people.

    Confederate memorials are.

    The majority of Confederate statues were erected at the height of Jim Crow lynching era in the early 1900s and the 1960s civil rights de-segregation era. There was a mass surge of schools being named after Confederates that's timed exactly with American schools desegregating.

    The statues are provocative statements aimed at African Americans to know their place.
This discussion has been closed.