Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Palace is laying the groundwork for a Regency

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Palace is laying the groundwork for a Regency

The beauty of the Commonwealth lies in its pointlessness. Far from being a hindrance, the fact that it doesn’t have a purpose is a feature, not a bug. No-one is being swept along by ‘the Project’ and rarely does anyone expect anything from the two-yearly get-togethers – and that lack of clear agenda, combined with an informal atmosphere with leaders parted from advisors and officials, is what can create the space to nudge international discussions on one topic or another in a positive way – such as the focus today on addressing poor vision among the world’s poor. The meetings are in that sense rather like a working funeral, except without the need for a death.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thanks David, and god save the queen!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited April 2018
    God has the time now that she has sorted out North Korea, which has announced a cessation of nuclear and missile testing.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43846488
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Meanwhile in America, the Democrats are suing Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks for conspiring to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43844253

    The Washington Post says this tactic was previously used during Watergate (and $750,000 damages was paid the day Nixon left office).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    For betting purposes, a joint award for Trump, Kim and Xi of China seems most likely, assuming a deal is reached.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited April 2018

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting thread - another consideration is Charles attendance at the State Opening of Parliament - while he has done it many times before - and most recently stood in for Prince Philip who was indisposed - in 2013 it sparked speculation along similar lines:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22450163
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    RobD said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
    That utterly devalued the 'peace' prize. It should be awarded for achievements, not because someone has been elected.

    It should also be awarded after a few years, once situations have calmed down and the reality of the peace can be seen.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    RobD said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
    That utterly devalued the 'peace' prize. It should be awarded for achievements, not because someone has been elected.

    It should also be awarded after a few years, once situations have calmed down and the reality of the peace can be seen.
    Obama's award did rather seem like the Nobel Prize for not being George W Bush but on the other hand, the Peace prize has often been given for aspiration rather than lasting achievement; the Northern Ireland peace women being a local example.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
    Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
    Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.
    I’m sure they will give excuses. The real reason is the Nobel committees are intensely political and not fit for purpose.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    Obama got one without deserving it.
    As DecrepitJohnL points out it really was the 'not George Bush' prize - winning by 'harnessing the power of social media - before that became a bad thing, when the wrong people won with it....

    Trump's successor on the other hand will probably be a dead cert.....
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited April 2018
    Good morning, everyone.

    An intriguing suggestion, Mr. Herdson.

    Tennis: yesterday, 3/4 tips failed, although one was just a tie-break away from coming off and would've put me green. So, red, but not quite idiotically red.

    Edited extra bit: there's a Ladbrokes special, 3.25 on Ricciardo going to Ferrari next year. Personally, not tempted. Short odds for a potential payout months down the line, and I think Mercedes would be a likelier shift, if he does move.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
    Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.
    I’m sure they will give excuses. The real reason is the Nobel committees are intensely political and not fit for purpose.
    The peace committee, yes. The science ones often give justified prizes IMO. Literature I'm less sure about, then again I'm a philistine when it comes to that topic - I even enjoyed one of SeanT's books ...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    In an update on very weird news from last year, Allison Mack (Chloe from Smallville) has been charged with sex trafficking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43846243
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Amusing anecdote about the Prince Regent.

    It is said that on one occasion the radical journalist and MP John Wilkes was sitting next to the then Prince of Wales at dinner, when suddenly and without apparent reason he stood up and proposed a toast - 'To the health of his Majesty King George III!'

    Everyone responded, although Prinny rather reluctantly. After they had sat down again he turned to Wilkes and said, 'Tell me, Mr Wilkes, how long have you taken an interest in my dear father's health?'

    'Why, since I had the pleasure of Your Royal Highness' acquaintance!' replied Wilkes.

    I have a feeling a large number of us - except TSE of course - would have a similar reaction to the thought of Charles as Head of State, or even as regent.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Doethur, a possibility, besides workload and old age, could be that the Queen wants to see how Charles acts in such a capacity and tell him to shut up about his own opinion if he starts wibbling.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
    I assumed they wanted to get in quick before someone shot him.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited April 2018

    Mr. Doethur, a possibility, besides workload and old age, could be that the Queen wants to see how Charles acts in such a capacity and tell him to shut up about his own opinion if he starts wibbling.

    It's too late for that. The Queen had a huge advantage in coming to the throne very young before she was widely known as an individual. She therefore hadn't given any opinion on anything and could quite safely keep her lip buttoned. That is something she's developed to an art form. Every Prime Minister has felt able to talk to her freely and she has never once given the slightest public hint of any contrary views, or briefed against them. The tabloid headlines about her views on the EU referendum that caused such a storm were (a) very unusual and (b) seem to have been made up.

    Charles, having given so many views on so many things, is in a lose-lose situation. If he continues shooting his mouth off, he makes his position untenable, if he doesn't his opinions will still be flung at him and it will be assumed he's hiding them because he wants to hold onto the throne.

    (Of course, this hasn't applied to Philip...)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    Charles is too slim to be Prince Regent! Interested in architecture though.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    From a while back - but a good long read on the day the queen's only higher authority intervenes:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Charles is too slim to be Prince Regent! Interested in architecture though.

    I don't know. Prinny was a recognised expert on food and wining. Charles a recognised expert on horticulture and whining...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.
    So how would a sane deal be worked out? Kim would want the US out of South Korea in exchange for giving up his bomb. Trump would just want Kim to give it up unilaterally. I can't see either of those things happening.
    A deal involving no more tests of the bomb or the missiles and a dialling down of anti-US rhetoric in exchange for food aid might be a possibility. Are either of these leaders capable of making any progress or at least not making things worse?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    From a while back - but a good long read on the day the queen's only higher authority intervenes:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

    Two thoughts occur to me:

    1) If the code is meant to be secret, having been leaked to The Grauniad that bit has failed in truly epic fashion. So we may assume the details have had to be changed.

    2) if they haven't, should London Bridge ever suffer structural failure the official who informs Theresa May will have to be bloody careful how they phrase the news.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    I may be in a minority on this forum, but I don't think the Commonwealth is pointless.

    It's a community of nations that share language, history and, largely, common law and systems of Government. It is united as a loose friendly fraternity, with the British monarch as its figurehead.

    It may have a soft focus on education, sport and young people - although I suspect, over time, economic and business links will become more important, as will human rights - but it's long-term purpose is clear: the economic/political centre of gravity of the world is moving to Africa and Asia and it will increasing become the non-Chinese international fulcrum of that.

    If we want the world to truly continue to develop in the direction of free, liberal democracies that are friendly to, and trade with, one another, then we must continue to engage, in a leading role, with what is a very valuable asset to the sum of humanity that has us as the common link.

    Yes, it's not perfect, and there are embarrassing aspects of it too, but I am proud of the Commonwealth and our role in creating it. We should build on it going forwards.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589

    RobD said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
    That utterly devalued the 'peace' prize. It should be awarded for achievements, not because someone has been elected...
    That happened long since with its award to Kissinger.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    ydoethur said:

    Charles is too slim to be Prince Regent! Interested in architecture though.

    I don't know. Prinny was a recognised expert on food and wining. Charles a recognised expert on horticulture and whining...
    And the furniture industry would be delighted.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.

    I don’t think China is likely to be swayed by such considerations. Probably their primary concern is to prevent Korean reunification.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    Also on topic, yes, The Queen is moving towards being monarch in name only, with effective retirement, and rightly so. No-one has worked harder for longer for our nation than she has - ever.

    Philip was the canary down the coal mine, which everyone has accepted, and if she follows the same path then over the next 3 years, by the age of 95, this should have taken place.

    I imagine she'd continue to do Christmas broadcasts, she'll still attend religious services, and perhaps the odd armed forces/charitable event/race meeting she chooses to do. The key things she'd need to shed are the red boxes, signing off legislation and the weekly audiences with the PM. I imagine that's a greater burden than any of us imagine.

    Leaving aside what instantly pops into my mind when I read "Prince Regent" - Hugh Laurie is the answer, in case you're wondering - I don't know if a Regency Act would be required for that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
    Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.
    I’m sure they will give excuses. The real reason is the Nobel committees are intensely political and not fit for purpose.
    The peace committee, yes. The science ones often give justified prizes IMO. Literature I'm less sure about, then again I'm a philistine when it comes to that topic - I even enjoyed one of SeanT's books ...
    Science are good, although economics swayed by prevailing fashion. Literature highly troubled right now (may be @SeanT influenced them). Peace is the one that is broken.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.

    If that's true, then Trump - remarkably - has actually achieved something far more than Obama there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited April 2018

    Also on topic, yes, The Queen is moving towards being monarch in name only, with effective retirement, and rightly so. No-one has worked harder for longer for our nation than she has - ever.

    Philip was the canary down the coal mine, which everyone has accepted, and if she follows the same path then over the next 3 years, by the age of 95, this should have taken place.

    I imagine she'd continue to do Christmas broadcasts, she'll still attend religious services, and perhaps the odd armed forces/charitable event/race meeting she chooses to do. The key things she'd need to shed are the red boxes, signing off legislation and the weekly audiences with the PM. I imagine that's a greater burden than any of us imagine.

    Leaving aside what instantly pops into my mind when I read "Prince Regent" - Hugh Laurie is the answer, in case you're wondering - I don't know if a Regency Act would be required for that.

    The current Regency Act dates from 1928 and allows for a regency council of the next X number of adults in line to the throne (I think it's five - that would be Charles and his sons, Andrew and Beatrice) under the leadership of the heir apparent, or if the heir apparent is too young, the spouse of the Sovereign. So yes, for Charles to be sole regent an Act of Parliament would be required.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Nigelb said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.

    I don’t think China is likely to be swayed by such considerations. Probably their primary concern is to prevent Korean reunification.

    Yes, of course. But reunification is not a major US goal. De-escalation is what matters. Also worth bearing in mind that Xi is consolidating and widening his own power at the expense of the traditional model in China. His relationship with Trump on a personal level is a major issue, too. Trump is drawn to the Alpha male.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B, disagree somewhat with that. China's top priority has to be to stop North Korea collapsing and (or due to) mass warfare breaking out. They don't want millions of refugees fleeing over the border and a failed state on their doorstep.

    Mr. Observer, indeed, though I fear Xi's made a critical mistake, for the long term, with his change to the succession formula. Even if he's a very wily leader and can either abdicate as he pleases or rules until his demise, the aftermath could be a bloodbath. If he's less fortunate, that could see others trying to bring him down.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Root, unfair on Brown.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    I see that after bricking themselves over impending armageddon 2 weeks ago, all the fairweather Trumpians have come out of the woodwork to praise his (yet to be franked) statesmanship.

    Enjoy the ride lads, it's less than half, or quarter, the way through.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    I think Labour's worst leader has to be George Lansbury, and while Corbyn shares some of his weaknesses I don't think he is anywhere near as bad. But any judgement on Corbyn has to be in the context of just how bad a state Labour were in after the 2015 general election. There were serious doubts as to whether it could survive as the main party of opposition. That under Corbyn's watch Labour are now in contention to win next time is a pretty good turnaround. He really can't be that bad.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    I do not understand why independent countries still wish to accept (at least in form) the tutelage of a governess. If Eire can secede, why don't Australia/India etc? It is even more demeaning for some of these countries to retain a foreign head of state, who is now physically incapable of visiting their territory. The sooner the remaining vestiges of feudal deference and privilege are eliminated from the UK as well as the so-called "British" Commonwealth, the better; this includes the HoL. However, it is desirable to have a non-political head of state, as in Eire.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Don’t forget that a regency gave us Blackadder 3. Given the paucity of good humour around at the moment a regency may prove an excellent investment.
  • felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    I think Labour's worst leader has to be George Lansbury, and while Corbyn shares some of his weaknesses I don't think he is anywhere near as bad. But any judgement on Corbyn has to be in the context of just how bad a state Labour were in after the 2015 general election. There were serious doubts as to whether it could survive as the main party of opposition. That under Corbyn's watch Labour are now in contention to win next time is a pretty good turnaround. He really can't be that bad.
    He really can
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.
    So how would a sane deal be worked out? Kim would want the US out of South Korea in exchange for giving up his bomb. Trump would just want Kim to give it up unilaterally. I can't see either of those things happening.
    A deal involving no more tests of the bomb or the missiles and a dialling down of anti-US rhetoric in exchange for food aid might be a possibility. Are either of these leaders capable of making any progress or at least not making things worse?
    To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.

    So what do the sides want?
    NK:
    *) To maintain the regime.
    *) To unify with the south.

    SK:
    *) To maintain their success story
    *) To unify with the north.
    *) Peace.

    China:
    *) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
    *) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
    *) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).

    US:
    *) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
    *) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
    *) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.

    If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.
  • murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    Explain?
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    He really can be that bad. Making the country defenceless is as bad it gets.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    daodao said:

    the so-called "British" Commonwealth

    Last called that in 1949. Do keep up.....

  • daodao said:

    I do not understand why independent countries still wish to accept (at least in form) the tutelage of a governess. If Eire can secede, why don't Australia/India etc? It is even more demeaning for some of these countries to retain a foreign head of state, who is now physically incapable of visiting their territory. The sooner the remaining vestiges of feudal deference and privilege are eliminated from the UK as well as the so-called "British" Commonwealth, the better; this includes the HoL. However, it is desirable to have a non-political head of state, as in Eire.

    You may not like it but the vast number of Commonwealth countries value the Commonwealth
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Mr. Root, unfair on Brown.

    Not really possible. No one alive today will have the same standard of living they could have had in their entire lifetime as a result of his incompetence. They will pay more tax for fewer services.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    ydoethur said:

    Amusing anecdote about the Prince Regent.

    It is said that on one occasion the radical journalist and MP John Wilkes was sitting next to the then Prince of Wales at dinner, when suddenly and without apparent reason he stood up and proposed a toast - 'To the health of his Majesty King George III!'

    Everyone responded, although Prinny rather reluctantly. After they had sat down again he turned to Wilkes and said, 'Tell me, Mr Wilkes, how long have you taken an interest in my dear father's health?'

    'Why, since I had the pleasure of Your Royal Highness' acquaintance!' replied Wilkes.

    I have a feeling a large number of us - except TSE of course - would have a similar reaction to the thought of Charles as Head of State, or even as regent.

    +1
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.
    I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    This is the commonwealth that I'd like to see:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Britain_Bill
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    Corbyn....... will be our next PM.
    Not on his current Best PM ratings, he won't....
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    Quite right, o
    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    f course.
    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    We do it so that the Conservatives or Labour can make a clean sweep of all the seats in a ward with a minimum of effort. That is why we do not change it. Pure self-interest.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    From a while back - but a good long read on the day the queen's only higher authority intervenes:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

    Christ, I sincerely hope I'm out of the country when it happens. Sounds intolerable.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.

    Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?

    'She's opening the new tram system' she said.

    At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.

    The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.

    "I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said

    "It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.
    So how would a sane deal be worked out? Kim would want the US out of South Korea in exchange for giving up his bomb. Trump would just want Kim to give it up unilaterally. I can't see either of those things happening.
    A deal involving no more tests of the bomb or the missiles and a dialling down of anti-US rhetoric in exchange for food aid might be a possibility. Are either of these leaders capable of making any progress or at least not making things worse?
    To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.

    So what do the sides want?
    NK:
    *) To maintain the regime.
    *) To unify with the south.

    SK:
    *) To maintain their success story
    *) To unify with the north.
    *) Peace.

    China:
    *) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
    *) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
    *) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).

    US:
    *) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
    *) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
    *) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.

    If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.
    We can perhaps add to that list, for China to see an end to American sanctions, and for North Korea a return of economic aid and industrial development. I doubt NK seriously wants unification with South Korea which would necessarily entail democracy and the end of the Kim dynasty. It will be more impressed by the Chinese model: a one-party state with a strong leader and impressive economic growth.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    Corbyn....... will be our next PM.
    Not on his current Best PM ratings, he won't....
    What were the best PM ratings in May 2017 I wonder?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    Charles. Re. Nobel: Literature highly troubled? Winston Churchill winning in the 1940s, or whenever, was a strange one. But most winners seem to be writers of genuine international stature.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. L, hmm. That is true.

    On the other hand, given the choice between Brown returning as PM or Corbyn becoming PM, I'd go for the former without any hesitation.

    Corbyn would **** the economy far worse, *and* we've seen how he handles things like anti-Semitism and would approach national security.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Thank you for an interesting thread Herders.

    However I believe that a retirement Regency is almost a unlikely as an abdication. Her Majesty would see such a regency as an abrogation, not only of her Coronation Oath which she takes as a lifelong duty to the nation, but also and of her 1947 vow.

    Other members of the royal family may retire but they are not the monarch and whilst younger royals will ease the strain of some of her duties, a regency based on an effective use by date is simply outwith of the scope of the Queen's nature.

    Coronation Oath :

    https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

    Princess Elizabeth's 21st Birthday Vow 1947 - From 5 min 40 sec :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlToHE_27U
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited April 2018

    This is the commonwealth that I'd like to see:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Britain_Bill

    +1, and the seconder of this bill deserves to be the next PM.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited April 2018

    Nigelb said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.

    I don’t think China is likely to be swayed by such considerations. Probably their primary concern is to prevent Korean reunification.

    Yes, of course. But reunification is not a major US goal. De-escalation is what matters. Also worth bearing in mind that Xi is consolidating and widening his own power at the expense of the traditional model in China. His relationship with Trump on a personal level is a major issue, too. Trump is drawn to the Alpha male.
    NOT reunifying is Kim Jong-un's existential goal. He is horrible dictator but he seems brutally rational. Having got North Korea into the club of nuclear powers and created an effective and relatively cheap deterrence to invasion with his nuclear weapons he can concentrate on normalizing international relations and building the economy.

    China's principal strategic aim is to push America out past the "island line" linking Korea to Indonesia via Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. North Korean sabre rattling complicates that goal.

    What South Korea thinks is a bit irrelevant to the power players but China has mainly good relations with that country.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547

    To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.

    So what do the sides want?
    NK:
    *) To maintain the regime.
    *) To unify with the south.

    SK:
    *) To maintain their success story
    *) To unify with the north.
    *) Peace.

    China:
    *) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
    *) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
    *) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).

    US:
    *) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
    *) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
    *) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.

    If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.

    We can perhaps add to that list, for China to see an end to American sanctions, and for North Korea a return of economic aid and industrial development. I doubt NK seriously wants unification with South Korea which would necessarily entail democracy and the end of the Kim dynasty. It will be more impressed by the Chinese model: a one-party state with a strong leader and impressive economic growth.

    Both sides claim to want reunification - the stumbling block has always been they want reunification under *their* system, not that of the other party. Whilst there is no way to change that immediately, the idea would be to work towards it: for instance by increasing co-operative works like the KIR.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.

    Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?

    'She's opening the new tram system' she said.

    At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.

    The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.

    "I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said

    "It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"

    It must have been a joy for you to meet Princess Anne as her father indulged his passion for carriage driving, albeit of the electrical variety .. :smile:
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    Corbyn....... will be our next PM.
    Not on his current Best PM ratings, he won't....
    What were the best PM ratings in May 2017 I wonder?
    At the end of May, May had a lead of 13 points (it had been higher) - today it's 14......

    Only 72 per cent of present Labour voters say that Mr Corbyn would make the best prime minister, with 27 per cent not sure, while 89 per cent of Tories choose Mrs May. In a sign that Mr Corbyn’s grip on Labour may be weakening, only 58 per cent of people who voted Labour in the general election last year said that they would choose him as the next prime minister.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2d38a936-44e1-11e8-99ea-a5dd07dd144b
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2018
    JackW said:

    Thank you for an interesting thread Herders.

    However I believe that a retirement Regency is almost a unlikely as an abdication. Her Majesty would see such a regency as an abrogation, not only of her Coronation Oath which she takes as a lifelong duty to the nation, but also and of her 1947 vow.

    Other members of the royal family may retire but they are not the monarch and whilst younger royals will ease the strain of some of her duties, a regency based on an effective use by date is simply outwith of the scope of the Queen's nature.

    Coronation Oath :

    https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

    Princess Elizabeth's 21st Birthday Vow 1947 - From 5 min 40 sec :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlToHE_27U

    I bet that takes you back Jack! Were you one of the guests booming out 'She's got the key to the door...never been 21 before!'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    daodao said:

    I do not understand why independent countries still wish to accept (at least in form) the tutelage of a governess. If Eire can secede, why don't Australia/India etc? It is even more demeaning for some of these countries to retain a foreign head of state, who is now physically incapable of visiting their territory. The sooner the remaining vestiges of feudal deference and privilege are eliminated from the UK as well as the so-called "British" Commonwealth, the better; this includes the HoL. However, it is desirable to have a non-political head of state, as in Eire.

    Surely up to them, rather than you, and clearly most don’t share your feelings.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    Interesting Yougov. Possibly reflects a couple of bad weeks for Labour and it becoming obvious again just how divided the Parliamentary party is. Although Windrush is bad on a personal level for those affected it has no personal impact on most voters and May will benefit from heartfelt apology and clear commitment to quick resolution of issues.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.
    So how would a sane deal be worked out?
    To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.

    So what do the sides want?
    NK:
    *) To maintain the regime.
    *) To unify with the south.

    SK:
    *) To maintain their success story
    *) To unify with the north.
    *) Peace.

    China:
    *) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
    *) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
    *) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).

    US:
    *) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
    *) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
    *) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.

    If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.
    The list ought also to include China’s strong and long standing animus against reunification. They want N Korea as a buffer state, in much the same way Russia is neuralgic about nations bordering it having closer ties with the EU or NATO.

    Historically both Koreas have always sought reunification, but increasing prosperity and social change in South Korea has rendered that a bit less of a national consensus.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Roger said:

    Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.

    Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?

    'She's opening the new tram system' she said.

    At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.

    The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.

    "I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said

    "It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"

    Ha ha - good story - very Mancunian. Family before celebrities from the other end of the country.

    Having said that, this republican is full of admiration for our present queen. She is so bloody dogged, so relentless in doing her job. She's so bloody professional. Presumably she has an ego, but - in contrast to every single other person in British public life - she shows absolutely no trace of it: who she is has always come second to her role. My heart rather aches for her, in fact; it's not that her job is physically demanding - though any job we ask a 90-year old woman to do is physically demanding - but that she simply does not feel she can stop doing it until she drops. Whatever one may think of the monarchy, you cannot help but admire her personal dedication to the role and to her country. We will miss her when she's gone, both institutionally and personally.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    PClipp said:

    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    Quite right, o
    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    f course.
    murali_s said:

    O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....

    We do it so that the Conservatives or Labour can make a clean sweep of all the seats in a ward with a minimum of effort. That is why we do not change it. Pure self-interest.
    I see the opposite. In areas such as Leeds where you normally elect one councillor at a time, this year there are all-up elections due to boundary changes. In wards where we currently win easily and have all 3 seats there is a greater risk of losing one of them due to 'traffic light' voting.

    Keep a look out for results such as 2 Lab + 1 Green or 2 Lab + 1 LD in 'safe' Labour wards.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited April 2018
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.
    I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.
    Rude is the word.

    Do you not realise the strength of an argument is enhanced with the lack of abuse
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited April 2018

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    I think Labour's worst leader has to be George Lansbury, and while Corbyn shares some of his weaknesses I don't think he is anywhere near as bad. But any judgement on Corbyn has to be in the context of just how bad a state Labour were in after the 2015 general election. There were serious doubts as to whether it could survive as the main party of opposition. That under Corbyn's watch Labour are now in contention to win next time is a pretty good turnaround. He really can't be that bad.

    The collapse of the LD and UKIP votes has meant a return to two party politics in England and many parts of Wales. If you want to stop the Tories you vote Labour and vice versa. By advocating doing nothing in the face of mass slaughter and by making his party a safe haven for anti-Semites, Corbyn is driving more voters into the Stop Labour camp.

  • Roger said:

    Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.

    Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?

    'She's opening the new tram system' she said.

    At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.

    The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.

    "I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said

    "It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"

    Great story
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT. I just received an email from Jeremy.

    "Roger, the last thing the Tories want right before local elections is for people up and down the country to be talking about just how badly cuts have hit their local communities. So we're going to make sure that's exactly what happens......"

    Introducing the one and only.......CUTS CALCULATOR!!!!

    I'm a real sucker for catchy one liners. That's got to be worth a vote
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Spot on. I have always accepted the theory that HMQ is driven entirely by a sense of duty. In the past that sense has said: Don't abdicate, because it is shirking your duty and letting the UK down by swapping a good monarch for a not so good one. Her duty to the country now is to ensure the succession of Charles (on the reasonable assumption that she is a monarchist and a House of Windsor supporter). The best person to sell Charlie to the nation, is her, and if abdicating now helps her make that sale, it becomes her duty.

    Her position is now that of a PM who is going to have to undergo a GE in the next 10 years or so, on her demise, but has the option of going to the country early to crush the anti-Charles saboteurs, by abdicating. I am sure she has advisers at least as astute as Timothy and Hill to do her game planning for her.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Cookie said:

    Roger said:

    Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.

    Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?

    'She's opening the new tram system' she said.

    At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.

    The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.

    "I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said

    "It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"

    Ha ha - good story - very Mancunian. Family before celebrities from the other end of the country.

    Having said that, this republican is full of admiration for our present queen. She is so bloody dogged, so relentless in doing her job. She's so bloody professional. Presumably she has an ego, but - in contrast to every single other person in British public life - she shows absolutely no trace of it: who she is has always come second to her role. My heart rather aches for her, in fact; it's not that her job is physically demanding - though any job we ask a 90-year old woman to do is physically demanding - but that she simply does not feel she can stop doing it until she drops. Whatever one may think of the monarchy, you cannot help but admire her personal dedication to the role and to her country. We will miss her when she's gone, both institutionally and personally.
    Unnerving thought - perhaps Theresa May, who shares that doggedness, will be PM when she's 90 in the Tory resurgence after 20 years of Labour Government...
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited April 2018
    Interesting article on ConHome (*ducks*) about May being no-confidenced if she gives way on the Customs Union:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/the-risks-to-mays-position-if-she-backs-off-leaving-off-the-customs-union.html

    What would that achieve? I think she’d get a vote of confidence from more than 200 MPs. The only options left would be to effectively no-confidence their own government, or secede to form a new party. Neither sound like a good idea to me.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Roger, the alternative to cuts is more borrowing. That means more debt and a higher deficit. Which means younger generations having less of their money because they're paying off the debts of older generations who lacked the stomach to try and get things in order.

    Catchy one-liners and election slogans are just empty rhetoric (like Corbyn's claim to be tough on anti-Semitism).

    Not that he's entirely opposed to cuts, of course. He'd cut defence, he'd cut national security, and he'd cut the ability of the UK to set its own foreign policy by giving the Russians a veto.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    RoyalBlue said:

    Interesting article on ConHome (*ducks*) about May being no-confidenced if she gives way on the Customs Union:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/the-risks-to-mays-position-if-she-backs-off-leaving-off-the-customs-union.html

    What would that achieve? I think she’d get a vote of confidence from more than 200 MPs. The only options left would be to effectively no-confidence their own government, or secede to form a new party. Neither sound like a good idea to me.

    It would achieve the creation of a betrayal narrative so that leavers can later blame all the problems caused by Brexit as due to May not doing the right kind of Brexit.

    Incidentally I hadn't realised that ex-pats were excluded from the referendum. That doesn't sound very democratic.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/expat-can-sue-to-overturn-brexit-referendum-x7kbp5krf
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    edited April 2018


    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.
    I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.
    Rude is the word.

    Do you not realise the strength of an argument is enhanced with the lack of abuse
    G , C'mon a bit of abuse spices up some really boring topics at times
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Charles said:

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)

    From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)

    If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.

    Obama got one without deserving it.

    I wonder why?
    I assumed they wanted to get in quick before someone shot him.
    I always assumed that it was the only way they could persuade him to visit Oslo.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Roger,

    "Introducing the one and only.......CUTS CALCULATOR!!!!"

    My local council e-mailed one to everyone and ran a campaign in the local paper on exactly that a couple of years ago, blaming central government for the budget cuts. The calculator allowed you to set a new budget by choosing which of the cuddly things to cut.

    Strangely enough, the CE's wages weren't one of the options. In fact, the options were strictly limited to basic services, and didn't include any of the fripperies we've become used to, such as this cuts calculator and the glossy magazines delivered from the council which I usually bin straight away.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.

    That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).

    But if he does ... wow.

    Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    For betting purposes, a joint award for Trump, Kim and Xi of China seems most likely, assuming a deal is reached.
    If Trump won the Nobel Peace Prize, the reaction from some quarters will be nothing short of spectacular.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Recidivist, peers and pro-EU MPs colluding to weaken the UK's negotiating position and trying to force the UK to remain in the customs union after voting to leave the EU would embed this as a running sore in our political system for decades.

    It is not legitimate when the electorate vote to leave the EU for politicians to try and force us to remain subject to the EU when it comes to trade.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    It's similar to the argument that because the Scottish nationalists gained lots of ground in the 2014 referendum, they'd have no difficulty repeating the trick in a future referendum. The people who voted against independence in 2014 are going to be very hard to win over, just as people who voted Conservative in 2017 will be very hard to win over.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    malcolmg said:


    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.
    I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.
    Rude is the word.

    Do you not realise the strength of an argument is enhanced with the lack of abuse
    G , C'mon a bit of abuse spices up some really boring topics at times
    Indeed, malc - but you have turned it into an art form to which murali can’t even hope to aspire.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Mr. Recidivist, peers and pro-EU MPs colluding to weaken the UK's negotiating position and trying to force the UK to remain in the customs union after voting to leave the EU would embed this as a running sore in our political system for decades.

    It is not legitimate when the electorate vote to leave the EU for politicians to try and force us to remain subject to the EU when it comes to trade.

    It’s worth questioning their motives if they are trying to stop us from leaving, but that ship has now sailed. We are leaving. The referendum was not about our future relationship, hard or soft brexit. It was whether we end our membership of the European Union. There was no other question on the ballot paper.

    The democratic mandate from the referendum starts and stops there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,962
    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Perhaps, pea-brain Labour idiot, you would like to explain where Corbyn is going to find another chunk of the electorate to make up the deficit, giving that he hoovered up the "not Tory" vote last time? Or is there a yet-to-be-exploited pool of anti-semites he can rely on in 2022?

    Corbyn is the busted flush in UK politics.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Mr. Recidivist, peers and pro-EU MPs colluding to weaken the UK's negotiating position and trying to force the UK to remain in the customs union after voting to leave the EU would embed this as a running sore in our political system for decades.

    It is not legitimate when the electorate vote to leave the EU for politicians to try and force us to remain subject to the EU when it comes to trade.

    People only voted to leave the EU. That doesn't preclude staying in the customs union, or any of the many other mutually beneficial arrangements the EU runs. And given the narrowness of the vote and the almost inevitability of us rejoining again in the near future I'd argue that the government is being extremely irresponsible in following any other policy than absolutely minimal disruption to existing relations with our neighbours. We do still live in a democracy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    The last Regent, George IV, only reigned for ten years after his father reigned for almost half a century which suggests Charles will not be King for too long before William takes over.

    It was a similar story when Edward VII succeeded Victoria
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    murali_s said:

    felix said:

    Ooh! Yougov.

    CON: 43% (+3)
    LAB: 38% (-2)
    LD: 8% (-1)

    Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.
    It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
    When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.

    As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
    Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.
    I agree with their being no need for abusive posts, particularly posts that abuse the individual posting but why go on to turn that into a slur on "the left"?

    Spend half an hour on Conservative Home or read some of the responses to Alistair Meeks great posts and you will soon be disabused of that notion.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited April 2018
    No need to worry about a Jezza government. As the Remainers say, a true democratic vote means he'll have to take account of the 48% or whatever the minority vote is. So if Labour win with a massive 45%, their manifesto commitments will be submerged by the 55% from the other parties.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    "A working funeral without the need for a death" is a good way of describing the CHOGM. In this case the deceased manquee is none other than HM Queen Elizabeth herself, the A-est of A list celebrities. A bonus to the main event down the line, to put it indelicately. I doubt Indian PM Modi will turn up in Rwanda in two years time to see Prince Charles.

    The expansive communique is pure boilerplate covering all the main platitudes: democratic values, approval of free trade, concern for the environment, promotion of youth and diversity. None of this needs discussion. It just gets regurgitated and approved. Serious meetings deliver nitty gritty commitments on regulation, monitoring and especially money.

    The meeting does allow informal meetings between leaders of some relatively important countries who don't get together that often, including India, Australia, Canada and the UK itself. It also allows third world countries who normally struggle to be heard to get an audience with a number of useful players
This discussion has been closed.