Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg moves to a 9% chance on Betfair for the Democratic n

2

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    One thing my money can't buy Boomer berg is a couple of extra inches. Has any president ever been so short ?!
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417
    Pulpstar said:

    One thing my money can't buy Boomer berg is a couple of extra inches. Has any president ever been so short ?!

    Stereotypically presidents are tall, but these were all below the (modern) US average height...

    Rutherford B. Hayes 5 ft 8 1⁄2 in 174 cm
    William Henry Harrison 5 ft 8 in 173 cm
    James K. Polk 5 ft 8 in 173 cm
    Zachary Taylor 5 ft 8 in 173 cm
    Ulysses S. Grant 5 ft 8 in 173 cm
    John Quincy Adams 5 ft 7 1⁄2 in 171 cm
    John Adams 5 ft 7 in 170 cm
    William McKinley 5 ft 7 in 170 cm
    Martin Van Buren 5 ft 6 in 168 cm
    Benjamin Harrison 5 ft 6 in 168 cm
    James Madison 5 ft 4 in 163 cm

    No doubt some were taller than average for their era though!
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417
    Pulpstar said:

    One thing my money can't buy Boomer berg is a couple of extra inches. Has any president ever been so short ?!

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-man-grows-inches-surgery/story?id=15776730

    Sounds painful but apparently leg-lengthening is available as cosmetic surgery over there!

    Surgeons break the leg bone in two and implant a state-of-the-art telescopic rod into the middle of the broken bones which then pulls the bone apart very slowly, about one millimeter a day.

    New bone grows around it and tissues like the muscle, the nerves, the arteries, and the skin, regenerate as well.

    At about $85,000, the procedure is expensive and the process lengthy. It takes at least three months to complete it and it requires demanding and excruciating physical therapy.

    Apotheosis is still in recovery and he does not want to go public even though this is his second surgery. "I am still lengthening right now and there could be further complications and I don't want to talk about it successfully until it's been successful."

    But he is candid about his leg lengthening journey on www.makemetaller.org, an online forum for people interested in the procedure.


    "Apotheosis" is a web pseudonym by the way, but even so ...
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,020
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
    By standing as an independent he wants to stop Sanders winning and make sure Trump does in the event that Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. If Biden gets the nomination, Bloomberg will not stand. He's using his money to ensure that Biden gets the nomination. It's simple blackmail.
    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination, so Bloomberg will stand as an Independent
    Sanders has a chance but it's not increasingly likely.

    Bloomberg can stand as anything he likes, he's not going to win.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,679

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
    By standing as an independent he wants to stop Sanders winning and make sure Trump does in the event that Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. If Biden gets the nomination, Bloomberg will not stand. He's using his money to ensure that Biden gets the nomination. It's simple blackmail.
    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination, so Bloomberg will stand as an Independent
    Sanders has a chance but it's not increasingly likely.

    Bloomberg can stand as anything he likes, he's not going to win.
    He doesn't want to win. He wants to stop Sanders winning.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,020
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
    By standing as an independent he wants to stop Sanders winning and make sure Trump does in the event that Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. If Biden gets the nomination, Bloomberg will not stand. He's using his money to ensure that Biden gets the nomination. It's simple blackmail.
    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination, so Bloomberg will stand as an Independent
    Sanders has a chance but it's not increasingly likely.

    Bloomberg can stand as anything he likes, he's not going to win.
    He doesn't want to win. He wants to stop Sanders winning.
    That's correct. Does he think Sanders is too left?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,528
    I wonder if those wanting to continue funding Harry's security would be happy to continue funding the following. Per the Times:

    Police sources have previously raised eyebrows at the couple’s security costs, including the shipping of a fleet of secure cars to South Africa for their recent official visit there. There are longstanding concerns in Scotland Yard at the costs incurred by the number of royals who qualify for and request police protection.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 747
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
    By standing as an independent he wants to stop Sanders winning and make sure Trump does in the event that Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. If Biden gets the nomination, Bloomberg will not stand. He's using his money to ensure that Biden gets the nomination. It's simple blackmail.
    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination, so Bloomberg will stand as an Independent
    Sanders has a chance but it's not increasingly likely.

    Bloomberg can stand as anything he likes, he's not going to win.
    He doesn't want to win. He wants to stop Sanders winning.
    Bloomberg is only drawing votes from Biden, making it more likely Sanders wins.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417
    edited January 9
    MikeL said:

    I wonder if those wanting to continue funding Harry's security would be happy to continue funding the following. Per the Times:

    Police sources have previously raised eyebrows at the couple’s security costs, including the shipping of a fleet of secure cars to South Africa for their recent official visit there. There are longstanding concerns in Scotland Yard at the costs incurred by the number of royals who qualify for and request police protection.

    I'm no expert on diplomatic security but it strikes me that you'd be wanting rather more than one secure vehicle for that kind of trip with that kind of potential target in that kind of place. The thing about this kind of story in not just how one feels about the content of the story itself, but also the question of where this information is coming from, who's leaking/releasing it, what agenda they've got...

    Concern about "the number of royals" sounds like it was in part a moan about the sheer number of minor royalty (it's a big family), whereas Harry is particularly high-profile and has seen action in the armed forces against the kind of people who very much bear grudges and have a global capability to act on them.

    Of all the (many!) things that might erode public support for Harry, the fact he needs protection - especially after his military service - seems the wrong stick to try beating him with.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,528
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.

    As a supporter of the institution, I am beginning to agree that problems are mounting up that, taken together at the time of her passing, could drastically weaken it.
    I don't think so, Charles is getting better and William and Kate have a sense of duty Meghan and Harry clearly sadly did not
    My concern is that it will be chipped away in the Commonwealth realms, and while I think Charles is just fine the Queen's passing (after initial sympathy support for Charles) will be less and there are not many 'good' royals left, that's one reason I assume Charles' supposed plan for a slimmed down monarchy still prominently included Harry and Meghan, as they were still assets. How many others are assets?
    Meghan was not that much of an asset, though she did make the royal family multi ethnic.

    The Commonwealth realms I doubt will see much change anytime soon, in Canada certainly PM Trudeau is a royalist as are the main opposition Conservatives. In Australia the PM is a royalist too though Labor are led by a republican, in New Zealand PM Ardern is a Republican but the Deputy PM and her coalition Partner Winston Peters is a monarchist
    There’s not enough republicanism in Australia or NZ for them to change any time soon. Canada would probably keep the monarchy even if GB&NI abandoned it: without the monarchy Canada is just Vermont North.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    Quincel said:

    There is more chance in Gerry Adams coming the next leader of the conservative party than bloomberg winning.

    Bloomberg's chances are considerably lower than 0.1%.

    Why so low, given his non-negligible polling? He's hardly on track to win, but why so sure he can't surge from where he is?
    Bloomberg has a chance. But it's not a 10% chance.

    If the existing moderate candidates (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Yang, Steyer) cancel each other out in the first few primaries, and if Bloomberg keeps spending, hard, then it's possible (but not likely) he ends up the nominee.

    Ultimately, he needs to become the moderate choice for Democrats. And he needs to do that by performing *extremely* well on Super Tuesday.

    That's probably a 1-2% chance, not a 0.1% chance, and not a 10% chance.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411
    Ironic, given that the Erasmus programme was founded by a UK politician: Winnie Ewing MEP (also MP and MSP) of the Scottish National Party.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411

    The Windsors seem pretty good at distributing time e.g. between Scotland, England and (to some extent) Wales - presumably this has long had a deliberate element of trying not to seem too much the "English" royal family. Although there is the odd royal tour of Canada / Australia / NZ and some of the other places they still provide the head of state, it's long puzzled me that they don't do more active engagement overseas. Perhaps not an annual Balmoral-style retreat to somewhere warm in Australia, but they do seem to have some spare capacity, princes/princesses quite far down the line of succession, so why not open up a more full-time subsidiary branch in Canada or Oz for cultivating their ties there - all the hospital openings, railroad unveilings and a spot of charity work?

    The current situation with Harry is not what I was expecting, but if the royal family had been mad enough to ask me a year or two ago "what do you think we should do with these two?" my first response would be "send them to Canada and find something useful, decently high profile and relatively uncontroversial to do". Imagine they wouldn't be best suited to sticking to the uncontroversial, but they do have drive and a degree of relatability, so if energy was expended in the right direction, they could potentially delay republicanism by a generation.

    - “... so why not open up a more full-time subsidiary branch in...”

    Short answer: risk.

    Long answer: familiarity breeds contempt.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    edited January 9
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yokes said:

    When you got money, you can have delusions. The difficulty is straightforward. Trump probably cant win unless he comes up against a total socialist. Trump's base just isn't enough as it stands BUT its pretty damn solid. The Democrat base is motivated but in order to achieve a clear victory it needs the classic swing voters. Bloomberg threatens that section of votes.

    IMO Trump is going to lose regardless. But my confidence in that prediction would be a tad less if Bernie is the opponent, and a little less again if Bloomberg clutters things up as a 3rd candidate.
    Except that looks increasingly like what the election will be as each day goes by
    Really?

    I'm not convinced by either part of your premise. The key is that the combined Warren + Sanders vote (which I'll use as the proxy for left of the Democratic party) has hovered between 36 and 42% for four months. This ties in very well with the polling that says that 60% want a moderate and 40% want someone more... left wing.

    In many ways, this election is like the French Presidential election. The initial contests don't produce that many delegates, but get the field down to (say) three players by Super Tuesday and two players after.

    So, what you need to ask people in New Mexico, California, etc., is "If the nomination was between Biden and Sanders*, who would you vote for?" Because that will be the reality when those primaries come around. If you're saying "Sanders wins New Mexico because he's polling 27% there", then you're making the same mistake of thinking Le Pen wins because she's ahead when there are five candidates.

    To win the nomination, you need to have 50% of the delegates. And I don't see how Sanders easily gets there. Can I see a path? Sure, I can. But it's a narrow path that requires Bloomberg, Biden, Booker and Buttigieg to stay in the race a long time, resulting in a ton of moderate votes falling short of the 15% threshold and being wasted.

    * Or, obviously, Buttigieg vs Sanders... or Klobuchar vs Warren...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris

    OK, so in your view the ends (respecting the 2016 referendum) justified the means (exploitation of frail old lady). Fine. But not everybody is so sanguine about it.
    I hope I am that frail at 93!
    Unlike most 93 year olds she round-the-clock, on-the-spot, taxpayer-funded, at-home personal care and medical expertise/monitoring/advice.

    If and when robots/AI develop sufficiently to allow such intensive medical support to the general populace, at a reasonable price, you’ll find the lots of 93 year olds are as rudely robust.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411
    Is that news? Willie Ross was banging on about this in the 1960s, and it has been a feature of BritNat discourse ever since. It strikes me that a few ill-informed Westminster Bubblers are 6 decades behind the curve when it comes to Scottish affairs. Again.

    Please note that many Unionists actively dislike the notion that Scotland leaving would dissolve the Union. They contend, mistakenly, that the Union dates from 1801 and not 1707.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination

    Where does this come from ?

    He's behind Warren in the latest Yougov poll - and looks a touch overdone at around 4.2 on Betfair to me.
    In the polling average he's still a mile behind Biden who will be ahead in delegates after South Carolina and Nevada.
    Sanders is ahead in the latest Iowa and New Hampshire polls and no candidate in almost 50 years has won both of those states and failed to win the nomination.
    Sanders is not ahead in the latest Iowa poll - he's level with Buttigieg and Biden on 23%.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,872

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris

    OK, so in your view the ends (respecting the 2016 referendum) justified the means (exploitation of frail old lady). Fine. But not everybody is so sanguine about it.
    I hope I am that frail at 93!
    Unlike most 93 year olds she round-the-clock, on-the-spot, taxpayer-funded, at-home personal care and medical expertise/monitoring/advice.

    If and when robots/AI develop sufficiently to allow such intensive medical support to the general populace, at a reasonable price, you’ll find the lots of 93 year olds are as rudely robust.
    The Queen Mum made it to 101 on gin, fags and horseracing. While she will have had first rate medical care, remember that for much of her life even that was far inferior to what is available to any scullery maid today. MRI and cat scans date only from the 1980s, for instance. There is probably a large genetic element, as well as not working down coal mines. But imo HMQ does look frail recently and has adopted a stooping gait.

    None of which alters the fact HMQ was messed around by Boris for his own political convenience.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,872
    edited January 9

    Is that news? Willie Ross was banging on about this in the 1960s, and it has been a feature of BritNat discourse ever since. It strikes me that a few ill-informed Westminster Bubblers are 6 decades behind the curve when it comes to Scottish affairs. Again.

    Please note that many Unionists actively dislike the notion that Scotland leaving would dissolve the Union. They contend, mistakenly, that the Union dates from 1801 and not 1707.
    Yes, it is news if Boris is suddenly using different terminology. As the tweet suggests, there is probably a reason for it. The American pollster Frank Luntz specialised in this sort of work. Viewers of When Boris Met Dave will remember that Luntz and Boris were contemporaries at Oxford. Coincidence? Perhaps. Dominic Cummings is also known for pre-testing messages.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 13,506
    edited January 9
    OT when does Tucker Carlson get his Nobel Peace Prize? This must be about the third time he's single-handedly averted WW3. I mean, Obama got one for doing nothing and proceeded to create a never-ending war in Libya, and Yasser Arafat got one so clearly being a total fuckhead isn't a bar.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211

    Is that news? Willie Ross was banging on about this in the 1960s, and it has been a feature of BritNat discourse ever since. It strikes me that a few ill-informed Westminster Bubblers are 6 decades behind the curve when it comes to Scottish affairs. Again.

    Please note that many Unionists actively dislike the notion that Scotland leaving would dissolve the Union. They contend, mistakenly, that the Union dates from 1801 and not 1707.
    Yes, it is news if Boris is suddenly using different terminology. As the tweet suggests, there is probably a reason for it. The American pollster Frank Luntz specialised in this sort of work. Viewers of When Boris Met Dave will remember that Luntz and Boris were contemporaries at Oxford. Coincidence? Perhaps. Dominic Cummings is also known for pre-testing messages.
    The No.10 team has a number of experts on messaging and communications. Everything the PM says is likely to have been through several focus groups first.

    He sees his most important job as getting Brexit over the line, so he can move away from constitutional issues and onto making life better for the average citizen. He’s got no truck for those who don’t like the results of plebiscites.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411

    Is that news? Willie Ross was banging on about this in the 1960s, and it has been a feature of BritNat discourse ever since. It strikes me that a few ill-informed Westminster Bubblers are 6 decades behind the curve when it comes to Scottish affairs. Again.

    Please note that many Unionists actively dislike the notion that Scotland leaving would dissolve the Union. They contend, mistakenly, that the Union dates from 1801 and not 1707.
    Yes, it is news if Boris is suddenly using different terminology. As the tweet suggests, there is probably a reason for it. The American pollster Frank Luntz specialised in this sort of work. Viewers of When Boris Met Dave will remember that Luntz and Boris were contemporaries at Oxford. Coincidence? Perhaps. Dominic Cummings is also known for pre-testing messages.
    Thousands of Scottish Unionist activists use terminology during 6 decades = non-notable.

    One English politician “suddenly” starts (dubious) using same terminology = stunningly significant.

    Err... no.

    The campaign for Scottish self-government will be win or lost in Scotland, not south of the Watford Gap. But you guys keep up he squirrel-spotting. No skin off my back.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211
    edited January 9


    ttps://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1215068164435980290?s=20
    Not quite the headlines that Team Sussex were hoping for!

    Sounds like one paper got the story (leaked from the US?) and they rushed out a statement without even saying anything to HMQ first - after they had gone missing from the traditional Royal Christmas.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411
    Sandpit said:

    Is that news? Willie Ross was banging on about this in the 1960s, and it has been a feature of BritNat discourse ever since. It strikes me that a few ill-informed Westminster Bubblers are 6 decades behind the curve when it comes to Scottish affairs. Again.

    Please note that many Unionists actively dislike the notion that Scotland leaving would dissolve the Union. They contend, mistakenly, that the Union dates from 1801 and not 1707.
    Yes, it is news if Boris is suddenly using different terminology. As the tweet suggests, there is probably a reason for it. The American pollster Frank Luntz specialised in this sort of work. Viewers of When Boris Met Dave will remember that Luntz and Boris were contemporaries at Oxford. Coincidence? Perhaps. Dominic Cummings is also known for pre-testing messages.
    The No.10 team has a number of experts on messaging and communications. Everything the PM says is likely to have been through several focus groups first.

    He sees his most important job as getting Brexit over the line, so he can move away from constitutional issues and onto making life better for the average citizen. He’s got no truck for those who don’t like the results of plebiscites.
    The Clown’s great strength, and great weakness, is that he has no truck for those who don’t vote Conservative.

    That’s:
    - 53% of English voters
    - 64% of Welsh voters
    - 75% of Scottish voters
    - 99% of NI voters

    FPTP allows him to safely despise these people, but don’t for one moment think that there will not be serious consequences. England, and the UK, need a statesman. They haven’t got one.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,317
    edited January 9
    The tabloids know they are a large part of the reason themselves, and so these two people moving further outside their orbit represents a sort of loss of control for them. I've rarely seen a better summing up of British popular press's malign culture of bullying than these collected front pages.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,191

    Better still, cut all the royals. Replace them​ with aliens, they'd do better.

    Already been tried, David Icke has written about this in detail
    There was a TV series about Aliens infiltrating our world and they looked just like humans. I cannot recall what it was call, it had an edgy name like V or Z or summat like it IIRC
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 22,223

    The tabloids know they are a large part of the reason themselves, and so these two people moving further outside their orbit represents a sort of loss of control for them. I've rarely seen a better summing up of British popular press's malign culture of bullying than these collected front pages.
    How many times does it need to be said that without buyers the papers would not exist.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,911
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Root, V. There was a version from the 1980s (it was repeated on Forces TV, I think) and a more modern one maybe a decade ago.

    Dumb decision by the Sussexes. Even if it's what they really want, not letting the Queen (or Harry's father and brother) know is not clever.

    That said, I don't begrudge any royal the right to abdicate that position. Although I'm not sure that's what they're doing. Are they going for half-in, half-out, a little bit pregnant?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411
    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,836

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    Suspect her ill-advised public comment about the guy with St Goerges flags all over his house and van has scuppered any chance she might have had.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,191

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Root, V. There was a version from the 1980s (it was repeated on Forces TV, I think) and a more modern one maybe a decade ago.

    Dumb decision by the Sussexes. Even if it's what they really want, not letting the Queen (or Harry's father and brother) know is not clever.

    That said, I don't begrudge any royal the right to abdicate that position. Although I'm not sure that's what they're doing. Are they going for half-in, half-out, a little bit pregnant?

    I have no idea but ladies of my acquaintance of a certain age seem to think the Duchess is "trouble" . I suspect that the Duchess doesn't like or want to buy into royal life and has tried to make her presence felt and has been put in her place.
    Frankly, Its not really of any consequence, there are other minor royals who can do their jobs quite satisfactorily.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,872

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,191
    TOPPING said:

    The tabloids know they are a large part of the reason themselves, and so these two people moving further outside their orbit represents a sort of loss of control for them. I've rarely seen a better summing up of British popular press's malign culture of bullying than these collected front pages.
    How many times does it need to be said that without buyers the papers would not exist.
    Yes , the left do not seem to understand why there is not a truly successful left wing newspaper. the Mirror is a rag, the Guardian not much better. I suspect its easier for the right of centre to portray the left as a bunch of trots rather than the left portraying the right as right wing extremists.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,872

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    Suspect her ill-advised public comment about the guy with St Goerges flags all over his house and van has scuppered any chance she might have had.
    Ironically, WMV probably votes Conservative anyway as a thrusting entrepreneur and probably most voters will be pleased not to live next door to anyone with so many square yards of flag but no-one said politics is fair.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Root, V. There was a version from the 1980s (it was repeated on Forces TV, I think) and a more modern one maybe a decade ago.

    Dumb decision by the Sussexes. Even if it's what they really want, not letting the Queen (or Harry's father and brother) know is not clever.

    That said, I don't begrudge any royal the right to abdicate that position. Although I'm not sure that's what they're doing. Are they going for half-in, half-out, a little bit pregnant?

    It sounds as if they're trying to get themselves in the position of having all of the advantages of being Royals, but with none of the disadvantages. They want to make themselves in to Hollywood 'celebrities' and make money from selling themselves to the media, but don't want to have to partake in Royal duties like spending Christmas with the Queen and cutting ribbons at hospitals.

    From the reaction of the Household, that isn't going to be happening.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    The cost of constantly deferring decisions on Brexit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51035672

    Its quite remarkable that the delays and uncertainty did not cause a technical recession. I think this year will be better.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,158
    Just seen a story that some mag has pulled an ad about grapefruit face masks because it left some woman with red marks on her face! WTF world are we living in?!?!?!
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,158

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
    They both have problems connecting with the brash northern psyche atm but Thornbury is much the worse option.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,911
    Mr. Sandpit, it does read a bit like that.

    If they're doing royal duties that means royal responsibilities. They, rightly, have the option of stepping away from that. But it's unclear what they actually want.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,311
    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,158

    Mr. Sandpit, it does read a bit like that.

    If they're doing royal duties that means royal responsibilities. They, rightly, have the option of stepping away from that. But it's unclear what they actually want.

    There is also the political neutrality issue. If you take the royal pennies....
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,158

    The tabloids know they are a large part of the reason themselves, and so these two people moving further outside their orbit represents a sort of loss of control for them. I've rarely seen a better summing up of British popular press's malign culture of bullying than these collected front pages.
    Utter rubbish. In no sense is this bullying.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    In my family and I suspect most others parents try hard to treat each of their children equally and give them equal consideration. In the Royal family that is not the case, especially as they get older and the eldest starts to produce their own prodigy, making the spares fundamentally irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that this causes problems and resentment. Andrew has lived a fundamentally empty life and Harry faces the risk of the same. Its almost cruel what this slightly bizarre institution does to its constituents.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,158
    DavidL said:

    In my family and I suspect most others parents try hard to treat each of their children equally and give them equal consideration. In the Royal family that is not the case, especially as they get older and the eldest starts to produce their own prodigy, making the spares fundamentally irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that this causes problems and resentment. Andrew has lived a fundamentally empty life and Harry faces the risk of the same. Its almost cruel what this slightly bizarre institution does to its constituents.

    I suspect quite a few folk would volunteer for that sort of cruelty given the perks.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    felix said:

    DavidL said:

    In my family and I suspect most others parents try hard to treat each of their children equally and give them equal consideration. In the Royal family that is not the case, especially as they get older and the eldest starts to produce their own prodigy, making the spares fundamentally irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that this causes problems and resentment. Andrew has lived a fundamentally empty life and Harry faces the risk of the same. Its almost cruel what this slightly bizarre institution does to its constituents.

    I suspect quite a few folk would volunteer for that sort of cruelty given the perks.
    I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. There is more to life than baubles.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,872
    edited January 9
    felix said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
    They both have problems connecting with the brash northern psyche atm but Thornbury is much the worse option.
    tbh I think this authentic working-class northerners thing is overblown given two of our past three prime ministers have come from Eton and Oxford.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,836

    TOPPING said:

    The tabloids know they are a large part of the reason themselves, and so these two people moving further outside their orbit represents a sort of loss of control for them. I've rarely seen a better summing up of British popular press's malign culture of bullying than these collected front pages.
    How many times does it need to be said that without buyers the papers would not exist.
    Yes , the left do not seem to understand why there is not a truly successful left wing newspaper. the Mirror is a rag, the Guardian not much better. I suspect its easier for the right of centre to portray the left as a bunch of trots rather than the left portraying the right as right wing extremists.
    I suspect the real issue is that the vast majority of the popular press is Right wing. That's partly due to advertising and partly due to the fact that the greater financial muscle has enabled right-wingers to buy up and close, or change, left-wing papers. The Sun, for example, was originally the Labour supporting Daily Herald and there were a large number of traditional Liberals who were aghast when the Mail bought out the News Chronicle.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    nico67 said:

    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .

    Have you got a link for this? I am not finding anything on the BBC. It would seem odd since so many countries in Erasmus are not in the EU.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,836
    nico67 said:

    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .


    To be fair, it's the element of 'having to' 'that was defeated. Still smells rotten though. Rather like Wallace's cheap gibes at Corbyn the other day.
    Boris' all together schtick sounds less and less sincere by then day.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,846

    felix said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
    They both have problems connecting with the brash northern psyche atm but Thornbury is much the worse option.
    tbh I think this authentic working-class northerners thing is overblown given two of our past three prime ministers have come from Eton and Oxford.
    Almost all our PMs have come from Oxford if I recall correctly from a previous post on here? The only recent one that has not was John Major who didn't go to university at all, and neither did Churchill. All the rest going back about 100 years are Oxford bar one other. Do the lizard people control Oxford perhaps?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,553
    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .

    Have you got a link for this? I am not finding anything on the BBC. It would seem odd since so many countries in Erasmus are not in the EU.
    It's an obvious move for the tories as the Erasmus program creates people with a pan-European outlook. The tories don't need even more pro-European young people who will undo all their good work on Brexit.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,627
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,990

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211

    felix said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
    They both have problems connecting with the brash northern psyche atm but Thornbury is much the worse option.
    tbh I think this authentic working-class northerners thing is overblown given two of our past three prime ministers have come from Eton and Oxford.
    Almost all our PMs have come from Oxford if I recall correctly from a previous post on here? The only recent one that has not was John Major who didn't go to university at all, and neither did Churchill. All the rest going back about 100 years are Oxford bar one other. Do the lizard people control Oxford perhaps?
    Gordon Brown (Edinburgh) is the only post-war PM who didn't go to either Oxford or the university of life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,990

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    After all, Thornberry was bookies` favourite for next leader for a long time. She must wonder what went wrong.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,836
    edited January 9
    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .

    Have you got a link for this? I am not finding anything on the BBC. It would seem odd since so many countries in Erasmus are not in the EU.
    Defeat of New Clause 10 in the Withdrawal Bill
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 22,223

    TOPPING said:

    The tabloids know they are a large part of the reason themselves, and so these two people moving further outside their orbit represents a sort of loss of control for them. I've rarely seen a better summing up of British popular press's malign culture of bullying than these collected front pages.
    How many times does it need to be said that without buyers the papers would not exist.
    Yes , the left do not seem to understand why there is not a truly successful left wing newspaper. the Mirror is a rag, the Guardian not much better. I suspect its easier for the right of centre to portray the left as a bunch of trots rather than the left portraying the right as right wing extremists.
    I suspect the real issue is that the vast majority of the popular press is Right wing. That's partly due to advertising and partly due to the fact that the greater financial muscle has enabled right-wingers to buy up and close, or change, left-wing papers. The Sun, for example, was originally the Labour supporting Daily Herald and there were a large number of traditional Liberals who were aghast when the Mail bought out the News Chronicle.
    Rubbish. Papers reflect their readership. They don't lead it. No reason why Socialist Worker couldn't be the top selling UK newspaper if enough people bought it.

    Socialist Worker sidebar of shame: we take a look at the collective that puts the sauce into ethical sourcing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .

    Have you got a link for this? I am not finding anything on the BBC. It would seem odd since so many countries in Erasmus are not in the EU.
    There was a truckload of amendments voted on last night. No press coverage now the votes aren't close though even though the legal effect or not is precisely the same as before the GE. The one party that changed its view depending on the actual amendment was the DUP.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,191
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
    They both have problems connecting with the brash northern psyche atm but Thornbury is much the worse option.
    tbh I think this authentic working-class northerners thing is overblown given two of our past three prime ministers have come from Eton and Oxford.
    Almost all our PMs have come from Oxford if I recall correctly from a previous post on here? The only recent one that has not was John Major who didn't go to university at all, and neither did Churchill. All the rest going back about 100 years are Oxford bar one other. Do the lizard people control Oxford perhaps?
    Gordon Brown (Edinburgh) is the only post-war PM who didn't go to either Oxford or the university of life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
    ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    DavidL said:

    In my family and I suspect most others parents try hard to treat each of their children equally and give them equal consideration. In the Royal family that is not the case, especially as they get older and the eldest starts to produce their own prodigy, making the spares fundamentally irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that this causes problems and resentment. Andrew has lived a fundamentally empty life and Harry faces the risk of the same. Its almost cruel what this slightly bizarre institution does to its constituents.

    Then they can leave it. But that's not what's they are seeking.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    nico67 said:

    So Tory MPs decided to vote against continuing Erasmus . Unbelievable and then also voted against re-unification of child refugees , totally reprehensible .

    Betraying younger people and then betraying child refugees .

    The young people being betrayed are those who do not have privileged backgrounds. And who cares about them?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Stocky said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    After all, Thornberry was bookies` favourite for next leader for a long time. She must wonder what went wrong.
    Where did it go wrong ?
    After the flag episode I noted she dropped weight and was sharp at answering questions on a QT episode she went on. Her PMQs outtings weren't awful either. The pounds seem to have come back on now and she's lost the zest she did briefly hold about a year back
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,846
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris

    OK, so in your view the ends (respecting the 2016 referendum) justified the means (exploitation of frail old lady). Fine. But not everybody is so sanguine about it.
    It was MPs exploting a frail old lady through the Benn Act to defy the will of the people and the people had their revenge by throwing the Remainer majority out
    The will of the people ffs. Change the record, you sound like a brainwashed apparachik from the People's Republic of China. OK, so you are not from China.

    It was not "The will of the people", it was a small majority in favour of a rather vague binary question. It had legitimacy, though by small margin, and that has now been endorsed by our quite undemocratic system that forced people to choose between an unsuitable PM and an absurdly unsuitable one. It was a stupid decision that needs honouring, but it is not "the will of the people", it was the will of some of the voters in 2016.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited January 9
    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    DavidL said:

    In my family and I suspect most others parents try hard to treat each of their children equally and give them equal consideration. In the Royal family that is not the case, especially as they get older and the eldest starts to produce their own prodigy, making the spares fundamentally irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that this causes problems and resentment. Andrew has lived a fundamentally empty life and Harry faces the risk of the same. Its almost cruel what this slightly bizarre institution does to its constituents.

    I suspect quite a few folk would volunteer for that sort of cruelty given the perks.
    I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. There is more to life than baubles.
    Yes. Born into a trap, with the bonus of having a load of people slag you off for it.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,990
    Pulpstar said:

    Stocky said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    After all, Thornberry was bookies` favourite for next leader for a long time. She must wonder what went wrong.
    Where did it go wrong ?
    After the flag episode I noted she dropped weight and was sharp at answering questions on a QT episode she went on. Her PMQs outtings weren't awful either. The pounds seem to have come back on now and she's lost the zest she did briefly hold about a year back
    She was favourite in the market a long time after the flag episode. I agree, it`s hard to see where it went wrong. Maybe it`s just that her "fall" coincides with Starmer`s rise.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    Suspect her ill-advised public comment about the guy with St Goerges flags all over his house and van has scuppered any chance she might have had.
    Anti-English sentiment is widespread throughout the British Establishment, of which Thornberry is part. But she was daft to express it so publicly.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,990

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    Maybe - but I genuinely don`t think that it occured to them when drawing up the GFA that we may ever leave the EU. Jonathan Powell said as much a few weeks ago. A genuine oversight I think, rather than a conspiracy.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,846
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    If all Labour needs is a London-based lawyer to cross-examine Boris at PMQs, then Emily Thornberry is at least more charismatic than Keir Starmer. Whether everyone is running scared of her White Van Man tweet or there is something more deeply objectionable is moot because she has not got the backing.
    They both have problems connecting with the brash northern psyche atm but Thornbury is much the worse option.
    tbh I think this authentic working-class northerners thing is overblown given two of our past three prime ministers have come from Eton and Oxford.
    Almost all our PMs have come from Oxford if I recall correctly from a previous post on here? The only recent one that has not was John Major who didn't go to university at all, and neither did Churchill. All the rest going back about 100 years are Oxford bar one other. Do the lizard people control Oxford perhaps?
    Gordon Brown (Edinburgh) is the only post-war PM who didn't go to either Oxford or the university of life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
    Good point, though he was not made PM via a GE, and as I now recall the post was referring to PMs who had won GEs. Maybe had he been to Oxford he would have been given a mandate lol.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    Stocky said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Stocky said:

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    After all, Thornberry was bookies` favourite for next leader for a long time. She must wonder what went wrong.
    Where did it go wrong ?
    After the flag episode I noted she dropped weight and was sharp at answering questions on a QT episode she went on. Her PMQs outtings weren't awful either. The pounds seem to have come back on now and she's lost the zest she did briefly hold about a year back
    She was favourite in the market a long time after the flag episode. I agree, it`s hard to see where it went wrong. Maybe it`s just that her "fall" coincides with Starmer`s rise.
    Trying to square the circle of being inside Corbyn's Cabinet whilst being horrified at the anti-semitism on dislay around her - anti-semitism every fibre of her being told her she should be screaming about at the top of her lungs - that is what did for her.

    That - and having to defend the stupid compromise Brexit settlement that Corbyn landed on. You could tell she knew it was bollocks.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411
    DavidL said:

    In my family and I suspect most others parents try hard to treat each of their children equally and give them equal consideration. In the Royal family that is not the case, especially as they get older and the eldest starts to produce their own prodigy, making the spares fundamentally irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that this causes problems and resentment. Andrew has lived a fundamentally empty life and Harry faces the risk of the same. Its almost cruel what this slightly bizarre institution does to its constituents.

    There is another slightly bizarre institution which is cruel to its consituents.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Perhaps,,, Although to be honest they are no where near as important as Edward (was) and Wallace (might have been if she'd been allowed to stick around)

    Harry was at his most important as "the spare" but even that went out the window when William had George.

    Harry's only saving grace now is that Diana was his mother... And even that becomes more insignificant with each passing year.

    I think this is really where Harry and Meghan have gone wrong within the Firm. They seemed to think they were much important players than they actually were. Turns out with HMQ>Charles>William>George> succession keeping the Royals secure for the next seventy years H and Meg just aren't that important.

    Go. Stay. Who cares.
    Harry is (quite obviously) still very badly affected by the death of his mother. I'm still not sure he's found himself.

    If I was being uncharitable, I'd say Meghan was exploiting that.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    isam said:
    I was careful not to say that it was universal. We seem to be seeing a hard squeeze on the middle.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    Maybe - but I genuinely don`t think that it occured to them when drawing up the GFA that we may ever leave the EU. Jonathan Powell said as much a few weeks ago. A genuine oversight I think, rather than a conspiracy.
    Yeah - like they are going to admit it was part of a conspiracy to rope us in!

    "Oh really? It has that consequence? Who knew...."

    99% of drafting legal documents is covering off instances you never expect to apply. Just in case they do.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,846

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    Suspect her ill-advised public comment about the guy with St Goerges flags all over his house and van has scuppered any chance she might have had.
    Anti-English sentiment is widespread throughout the British Establishment, of which Thornberry is part. But she was daft to express it so publicly.
    I think most educated English people feel uncomfortable with nationalism. They correctly see it as a rather silly, immature, and irrational concept at best and divisive and hate filled at worst. Sadly many of our Scottish cousins have their head in the sand on the nasty associations and contradictions of nationalism.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    Observe the fanatic: regarding the brokering of peace following a conflict that claimed 3000 lives as invidious.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Of course, just like the idiots (some on here, sadly) who keep dismissing any criticism of them with "tabloids" and "racism" Wallis and David had their legions of fans for decades after the abdication who they cultivated and clung onto.

    They learnt nothing, and they forgot nothing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    Observe the fanatic: regarding the brokering of peace following a conflict that claimed 3000 lives as invidious.

    An interesting thread ...



  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Perhaps,,, Although to be honest they are no where near as important as Edward (was) and Wallace (might have been if she'd been allowed to stick around)

    Harry was at his most important as "the spare" but even that went out the window when William had George.

    Harry's only saving grace now is that Diana was his mother... And even that becomes more insignificant with each passing year.

    I think this is really where Harry and Meghan have gone wrong within the Firm. They seemed to think they were much important players than they actually were. Turns out with HMQ>Charles>William>George> succession keeping the Royals secure for the next seventy years H and Meg just aren't that important.

    Go. Stay. Who cares.
    Harry is (quite obviously) still very badly affected by the death of his mother. I'm still not sure he's found himself.

    If I was being uncharitable, I'd say Meghan was exploiting that.
    More charitable perhaps to say she could have no comprehension of the pressures being Royal has put him under. No outsider really could. And Meghan is REALLY an outsider - that much has become clear. And therefore not the person best placed to hep him navigate his way through it.

    But maybe effectively being No Longer Royal will be the way for him to cope. I hope so, for his sake.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    The GFA was just as much John Major’s and Bill Clinton’s work as it was Tony Blair’s and Bertie Ahern’s.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    MikeL said:


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.
    But, then you have to bear in mind that there have been no problems with Princess Anne, who is perfectly comfortable with duty, and Edward has been fine since he married. Camilla made a comeback. Charles seems to be growing into his prospective job.

    There are rules of behaviour that, if followed, are fine. If not, rapidly cause raising of eyebrows.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    Observe the fanatic: regarding the brokering of peace following a conflict that claimed 3000 lives as invidious.
    Just more the visionary than you will ever be....
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    .

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    The GFA was just as much John Major’s and Bill Clinton’s work as it was Tony Blair’s and Bertie Ahern’s.
    Dont forget Jezza and Johnny Mac!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,016

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Of course, just like the idiots (some on here, sadly) who keep dismissing any criticism of them with "tabloids" and "racism" Wallis and David had their legions of fans for decades after the abdication who they cultivated and clung onto.

    They learnt nothing, and they forgot nothing.
    Prince Philip was right: "One steps out with actresses, one doesn't marry them.”
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,411

    Emily Thornberry on the wireless: sounding like a busted flush.

    Suspect her ill-advised public comment about the guy with St Goerges flags all over his house and van has scuppered any chance she might have had.
    Anti-English sentiment is widespread throughout the British Establishment, of which Thornberry is part. But she was daft to express it so publicly.
    I think most educated English people feel uncomfortable with nationalism. They correctly see it as a rather silly, immature, and irrational concept at best and divisive and hate filled at worst. Sadly many of our Scottish cousins have their head in the sand on the nasty associations and contradictions of nationalism.
    Of course there are no British nationalists. Oh... wait...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    Stocky said:

    That’s a hostage to fortune given Northern Ireland’s trajectory and Boris Johnson’s own part in that.
    The threat to the union that Brexit would have (because Brexit is inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement) is IMO the rationale for a 2nd referendum. History may judge Brexit through this lens.
    History is more likely to judge the Good Friday Agreement as a further invidious element of Blair stopping us ever leaving the EU.
    The GFA was just as much John Major’s and Bill Clinton’s work as it was Tony Blair’s and Bertie Ahern’s.
    Remind me about John Major's views on leaving the EU....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Perhaps,,, Although to be honest they are no where near as important as Edward (was) and Wallace (might have been if she'd been allowed to stick around)

    Harry was at his most important as "the spare" but even that went out the window when William had George.

    Harry's only saving grace now is that Diana was his mother... And even that becomes more insignificant with each passing year.

    I think this is really where Harry and Meghan have gone wrong within the Firm. They seemed to think they were much important players than they actually were. Turns out with HMQ>Charles>William>George> succession keeping the Royals secure for the next seventy years H and Meg just aren't that important.

    Go. Stay. Who cares.
    If Harry was directly in line to the throne next, as the older brother, Charles wasn't around, and HMQ had very little time left, then the comparison would be almost exact.

    It wasn't pleasant in the 1930s but I suspect, today, that would directly threaten the monarchy.

    You'd get opinion dividing on party and values lines (and possibly Brexit lines) with republicanism of different sorts growing on each flank. And it'd be far from certain it'd end with an abdication and a recovery.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Of course, just like the idiots (some on here, sadly) who keep dismissing any criticism of them with "tabloids" and "racism" Wallis and David had their legions of fans for decades after the abdication who they cultivated and clung onto.

    They learnt nothing, and they forgot nothing.
    Prince Philip was right: "One steps out with actresses, one doesn't marry them.”
    I was actually very dismissive of the reports of Meghan's past behaviour from her family and friends as tabloid gossip/jealousy when she married Harry.

    I'm now wondering if there was something to them.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    I'm surprised no Leaver has yet suggested that Prince Harry is being kept in reserve for that moment when Ms von der Leyen launches her successful reconquest and needs a puppet monarch sympathetic to European values to install on the throne.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Perhaps,,, Although to be honest they are no where near as important as Edward (was) and Wallace (might have been if she'd been allowed to stick around)

    Harry was at his most important as "the spare" but even that went out the window when William had George.

    Harry's only saving grace now is that Diana was his mother... And even that becomes more insignificant with each passing year.

    I think this is really where Harry and Meghan have gone wrong within the Firm. They seemed to think they were much important players than they actually were. Turns out with HMQ>Charles>William>George> succession keeping the Royals secure for the next seventy years H and Meg just aren't that important.

    Go. Stay. Who cares.
    Harry is (quite obviously) still very badly affected by the death of his mother. I'm still not sure he's found himself.

    If I was being uncharitable, I'd say Meghan was exploiting that.
    More charitable perhaps to say she could have no comprehension of the pressures being Royal has put him under. No outsider really could. And Meghan is REALLY an outsider - that much has become clear. And therefore not the person best placed to hep him navigate his way through it.

    But maybe effectively being No Longer Royal will be the way for him to cope. I hope so, for his sake.
    I'm not sure it will. I think he's deeply upset at the split with his brother and will miss his family. I can't see him being happy with Meghan alone.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the marriage doesn't last, and he comes home.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,383
    Prince Andrew has done far more damage to the royal family than Harry and Meghan.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,994

    MikeL said:


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.
    But, then you have to bear in mind that there have been no problems with Princess Anne, who is perfectly comfortable with duty, and Edward has been fine since he married. Camilla made a comeback. Charles seems to be growing into his prospective job.

    There are rules of behaviour that, if followed, are fine. If not, rapidly cause raising of eyebrows.
    Andrew Pierce last night brought up Edward's foray into television and film production and said that should be a warning to Harry and Meghan.

    I can understand why someone might be uncomfortable with living the existence that royals do (cutting ribbons etc.). But that really ought to have been made clear to Meghan before she married into it. There was a time when Kate had a bit of a wobble, and clearly she was thinking hard about what it would mean to marry William, but once the decision was made, she's got on with it and does it very well.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited January 9

    MikeL said:


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.
    But, then you have to bear in mind that there have been no problems with Princess Anne, who is perfectly comfortable with duty, and Edward has been fine since he married. Camilla made a comeback. Charles seems to be growing into his prospective job.

    There are rules of behaviour that, if followed, are fine. If not, rapidly cause raising of eyebrows.
    If someone wrote a fictional tale of a Royal family in the 21st century and didn't include a storyline where a celebrity married in, disrupted the whole shebang, persuaded their partner to chase the money and fame that come with being HRH without doing any of the duties, causing a rift between him, his brother, father and grandmother in the process, what kind of story would that be??
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    tlg86 said:

    MikeL said:


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.
    But, then you have to bear in mind that there have been no problems with Princess Anne, who is perfectly comfortable with duty, and Edward has been fine since he married. Camilla made a comeback. Charles seems to be growing into his prospective job.

    There are rules of behaviour that, if followed, are fine. If not, rapidly cause raising of eyebrows.
    Andrew Pierce last night brought up Edward's foray into television and film production and said that should be a warning to Harry and Meghan.

    I can understand why someone might be uncomfortable with living the existence that royals do (cutting ribbons etc.). But that really ought to have been made clear to Meghan before she married into it. There was a time when Kate had a bit of a wobble, and clearly she was thinking hard about what it would mean to marry William, but once the decision was made, she's got on with it and does it very well.
    Americans watch films like 'A Christmas Prince' on Netflix, which is all glitz and glamour and about fairytale royals, castles and kingdoms.

    They haven't a clue what it's really about - duty - and dislike it when they find out.
This discussion has been closed.