Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first reaction to the Royal Engagement from YouGov and Pri

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited November 29 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first reaction to the Royal Engagement from YouGov and Prince Charles looks great for the Republican movement

1/ Half the country (52%) isn't interested in the engagement, greeting the news with indifference. Older people, Conservatives and women are the most likely to be please by the news https://t.co/z2NhJllMx2 pic.twitter.com/PnmynV3zIQ

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Good on TM for saying Trump is wrong.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549
    edited November 29
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    FPT - the behaviour of the EU toward the UK (in its purist bureaucratic interpretation of every rule toward the UK as if it was a third country starting from year zero, and then claiming this is neither revenge nor punishment) is at odds with its stated desire to have the UK as a close partner with strong and constructive ties that encompass more than just trade.

    Unless the EU is willing to budge on that, and discuss the long-term relationship it wishes to have with the UK, which must be politically sustainable on both sides of the channel, there will be no deal.
  • Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    Take back control from unelected monarchs.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    Do you think William would want that? Why take on all the burden of being monarch just at the time when he and his wife are raising a young family?

    That is exactly the problem HMQ faced and by all accounts she and Philip would much rather George VI had lived longer.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    On topic, this can't be true.

    Aren't older persons and Conservatives supposed to be horrible racists?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    edited November 29
    Bit of mild spin from Joe Twyman there as well: the vast majority of Leavers think marrying someone of a different religion or ethnicity or has kids isn't a problem (even though it kind of is for religion).

    What difference there is there is probably accounted for by much older Leave voters, some of whom hold values of a different time.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,622
    Ha. When I said that I didn't think most people would feel much about the wedding except mild goodwill, a stream of people here said that showed I was out of touch.

    Voice of the People, that's me.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Charles and Camilla continue to confound in the popularity stakes then.

    They should probably do an Edward VIII, in all honesty. Harsh as it sounds.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Cyclefree said:


    I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.

    The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.

    FPT.
    Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.

    This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.



  • glwglw Posts: 3,872
    edited November 29
    rkrkrk said:

    Good on TM for saying Trump is wrong.

    Indeed.

    As stupid as Trump is, and retweeting far-right propaganda is pretty bloody stupid, it's Barnier who is my chump of the day. I honestly think he should resign his position after his comments today, we can not negotiate in good faith with such a person.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049

    Ha. When I said that I didn't think most people would feel much about the wedding except mild goodwill, a stream of people here said that showed I was out of touch.

    Voice of the People, that's me.

    Not really, you're a Republican. You are out of touch.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    glw said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Good on TM for saying Trump is wrong.

    Indeed.

    As stupid as Trump is, and retweeting far-right propaganda is pretty bloody stupid, it's Barnier who is my chump of the day. I honestly think he should resign his position after his comments today, we can not negotiate in good faith with such a person.
    It was an awful speech I thought and I can see why people are upset.
    End of the day though - we have Boris Johnson as FS.
    People in glass houses etc.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,054
    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    Do you think William would want that? Why take on all the burden of being monarch just at the time when he and his wife are raising a young family?

    That is exactly the problem HMQ faced and by all accounts she and Philip would much rather George VI had lived longer.

    I suspect the main reason HMQ wishes George VI had lived longer was because he was her dad.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    I think Harry would probably make a better King than William, to be honest, and both next to Charles, but that's by the by.

    The Queen has been so astonishingly superb in her role, doing it so well for so long, that anyone else is going to look mediocre in comparison.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    Do you think William would want that? Why take on all the burden of being monarch just at the time when he and his wife are raising a young family?

    That is exactly the problem HMQ faced and by all accounts she and Philip would much rather George VI had lived longer.

    I suspect the main reason HMQ wishes George VI had lived longer was because he was her dad.

    Indeed so. The relationship between George VI and his daughters was very deep, and loving.

    I expect HMQ misses him every single day.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318
    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    Won’t happen. Charles will be our next king.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    Not a debate
  • glwglw Posts: 3,872

    The Queen has been so astonishingly superb in her role, doing it so well for so long, that anyone else is going to look mediocre in comparison.

    Take one look at almost any plausible candidate for a President and all of a sudden letting fate take care of the matter doesn't sound so bad. I'll take Charles and William over any of the politicians who think they should be head of state.
  • Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,801
    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Your observations are spot on
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 179
    Can't think of anything in particular Charles and Camilla have done in the last four years to turn people against them, a blip due to the recent Diana anniversary perhaps?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.

    The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.

    FPT.
    Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.

    This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.



    She has handled it badly, certainly.

    Whether this will damage her career I'm not so sure. Labour seem willing to swallow a whole load of smelly camels. If anti-semitism, supping with terrorists, shilling for the Iranians etc etc doesn't harm you I don't see why this would. Though some who supported her may not like this, she now has a large majority so can probably afford not to worry about a loss of some support.

    Getting him released or trying to would do her a power of good. She may not want to because then she could get inundated by lots of other similar requests. Bangladesh has a very poor human rights record. I can understand why she might want to concentrate on her work here rather than acting as a one-woman Amnesty (Bangladesh branch).

    The other possibility is that she simply does not want to do anything which would involve criticising her family. Fair enough from a personal perspective - even if it is at odds with statements she has made in the past. Still, hypocrisy is pretty widespread and survivable.

    The worst possibility from her perspective is that she agrees with what the Bangladesh government is doing and may even have tipped them off. That really ought to be career-ending. But I stress that there is no evidence of this. Just questions which Channel 4 raised and which have yet to be answered.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,157
    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
  • Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    But can I watch it in 4k on a Chromebook?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.

    One was filmed in Norway, one was filmed in LA

    Can you think of a reason why one may have had more snow than the other?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    edited November 29
    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,549

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
    Maybe not technically/constitutionally, but in practice, in 21st century Britain, I think it does work like that.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Scott_P said:

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.

    One was filmed in Norway, one was filmed in LA

    Can you think of a reason why one may have had more snow than the other?
    Can you put {cart,horse} in the right order?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831

    Cyclefree said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    Do you think William would want that? Why take on all the burden of being monarch just at the time when he and his wife are raising a young family?

    That is exactly the problem HMQ faced and by all accounts she and Philip would much rather George VI had lived longer.

    I suspect the main reason HMQ wishes George VI had lived longer was because he was her dad.

    Of course. That goes without saying. But also because his premature death tipped her into a role much earlier than she might in the ordinary course have hoped. And must have had an effect on her marriage and time with her family

    Premature death of a parent drags you kicking and screaming into the adult world, with all its responsibilities at a time of intense grief. It is an appalling burden.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    I think Harry would probably make a better King than William, to be honest, and both next to Charles, but that's by the by.

    The Queen has been so astonishingly superb in her role, doing it so well for so long, that anyone else is going to look mediocre in comparison.
    Harry would indeed be good, but sadly Windsor blood is a prerequisite.
  • Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    Of course its a Christmas film.

    But I'm amazed at Life of Brian being called one by that link. If anything it's far more an Easter film than a Christmas one.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    Is that what happened? I thought they picked up their relationship much later on when the marriage was already in trouble.

    I couldn't really care less, tbh. It is very difficult to understand what makes a marriage tick or not from the outside. But what amazes me is that no-one from Diana's aristocratic family, well used to serving the Royals and, presumably, well-used to what to expect, did not tell her what to expect. Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away? Fidelity is hardly common amongst royals or aristocrats after all.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    For once, the C o E got it right by denying a wedding to two adulterers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.
    Errr. Die Hard is set in Los Angeles (where it's currently bright blue skies and 22 degrees). The Empire Strikes Back is set on Hoth, where it's 44 degrees below, and snowing.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    For once, the C o E got it right by denying a wedding to two adulterers.
    The CoE? The Church founded by an adulterer?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    Is that what happened? I thought they picked up their relationship much later on when the marriage was already in trouble.

    I couldn't really care less, tbh. It is very difficult to understand what makes a marriage tick or not from the outside. But what amazes me is that no-one from Diana's aristocratic family, well used to serving the Royals and, presumably, well-used to what to expect, did not tell her what to expect. Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away? Fidelity is hardly common amongst royals or aristocrats after all.
    Are you sure you are not Prince Charles in disguise? Because "Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away?" is allegedly exactly what he said to Diana, and if that is his idea of how hereditary entitlement works I'm buggered if I am standing for the national anthem while he's on the throne. Men (not limited to PsoW) used to behave in all sorts of hideous ways which are just no longer acceptable.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    For once, the C o E got it right by denying a wedding to two adulterers.
    The CoE? The Church founded by an adulterer?
    History is full of ironies.
  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    For once, the C o E got it right by denying a wedding to two adulterers.
    The CoE? The Church founded by an adulterer?
    History is full of ironies.
    Christianity: one woman's lie about adultery that got out of hand.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.
    Errr. Die Hard is set in Los Angeles (where it's currently bright blue skies and 22 degrees). The Empire Strikes Back is set on Hoth, where it's 44 degrees below, and snowing.

    Then hire some snow machines.

    It's not a Christmas movie without snow.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 847
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.

    The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.

    FPT.
    Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.

    This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.



    She has handled it badly, certainly.

    Whether this will damage her career I'm not so sure. Labour seem willing to swallow a whole load of smelly camels. If anti-semitism, supping with terrorists, shilling for the Iranians etc etc doesn't harm you I don't see why this would. Though some who supported her may not like this, she now has a large majority so can probably afford not to worry about a loss of some support.

    Getting him released or trying to would do her a power of good. She may not want to because then she could get inundated by lots of other similar requests. Bangladesh has a very poor human rights record. I can understand why she might want to concentrate on her work here rather than acting as a one-woman Amnesty (Bangladesh branch).

    The other possibility is that she simply does not want to do anything which would involve criticising her family. Fair enough from a personal perspective - even if it is at odds with statements she has made in the past. Still, hypocrisy is pretty widespread and survivable.

    The worst possibility from her perspective is that she agrees with what the Bangladesh government is doing and may even have tipped them off. That really ought to be career-ending. But I stress that there is no evidence of this. Just questions which Channel 4 raised and which have yet to be answered.
    If she did get him released, it would look like she in cahoots with a foreign government who unlawfully detain its own citizens. Not a good look for a Labour MP.

    This doesn't make any sense. Why has she played up to this narrative that she has all this power and influence in Bangladesh through personal connections? Vanity?

    A sensible person in her position would have taken significant steps to distance herself from the regime upon entering Parliament.

    Looks like a possible addition to the Laura Pidcock list of low quality politicians.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    Is that what happened? I thought they picked up their relationship much later on when the marriage was already in trouble.

    I couldn't really care less, tbh. It is very difficult to understand what makes a marriage tick or not from the outside. But what amazes me is that no-one from Diana's aristocratic family, well used to serving the Royals and, presumably, well-used to what to expect, did not tell her what to expect. Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away? Fidelity is hardly common amongst royals or aristocrats after all.
    Are you sure you are not Prince Charles in disguise? Because "Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away?" is allegedly exactly what he said to Diana, and if that is his idea of how hereditary entitlement works I'm buggered if I am standing for the national anthem while he's on the throne. Men (not limited to PsoW) used to behave in all sorts of hideous ways which are just no longer acceptable.
    Look at the divorce rate in this country. There is a hell of a lot of adultery going on.

    The idea that we don't stand for it doesn't really stand up.

    Charles - and Diana - were acting rather more like us than the image of monogamous perfect family the Royals had been selling us.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313

    rcs1000 said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.
    Errr. Die Hard is set in Los Angeles (where it's currently bright blue skies and 22 degrees). The Empire Strikes Back is set on Hoth, where it's 44 degrees below, and snowing.

    Then hire some snow machines.

    It's not a Christmas movie without snow.
    There was some snow in it. Just not the cold kind.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    There’s more snow in The Empire Strikes Back then Die Hard.
    Errr. Die Hard is set in Los Angeles (where it's currently bright blue skies and 22 degrees). The Empire Strikes Back is set on Hoth, where it's 44 degrees below, and snowing.

    Then hire some snow machines.

    It's not a Christmas movie without snow.
    There was some snow in it. Just not the cold kind.
    LMAO!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    For once, the C o E got it right by denying a wedding to two adulterers.
    The CoE? The Church founded by an adulterer?
    History is full of ironies.
    Christianity: one woman's lie about adultery that got out of hand.
    You want to be careful. Christianity looks like a safe target, but you're in trouble if Daesh decides to get medieval on the asses of those who disrespect the prophet of Allah ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, or Maryam herself.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    Are we getting an American State back with this woman? And if so, which one?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    I think Harry would probably make a better King than William, to be honest, and both next to Charles, but that's by the by.

    The Queen has been so astonishingly superb in her role, doing it so well for so long, that anyone else is going to look mediocre in comparison.
    Harry would indeed be good, but sadly Windsor blood is a prerequisite.
    There was a documentary a few years ago which claimed - how plausibly I don't know - that Victoria was not her father's daughter. In which case the entire Royal Family are not entitled to be there.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,899
    The problem with the Republican movement is that it's like Leave - all very well criticising the status quo, but what do you replace it with? I don't want Shami Chakrabarti as the head of state, and I'm not sure many do.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    Is that what happened? I thought they picked up their relationship much later on when the marriage was already in trouble.

    I couldn't really care less, tbh. It is very difficult to understand what makes a marriage tick or not from the outside. But what amazes me is that no-one from Diana's aristocratic family, well used to serving the Royals and, presumably, well-used to what to expect, did not tell her what to expect. Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away? Fidelity is hardly common amongst royals or aristocrats after all.
    Are you sure you are not Prince Charles in disguise? Because "Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away?" is allegedly exactly what he said to Diana, and if that is his idea of how hereditary entitlement works I'm buggered if I am standing for the national anthem while he's on the throne. Men (not limited to PsoW) used to behave in all sorts of hideous ways which are just no longer acceptable.
    Look at the divorce rate in this country. There is a hell of a lot of adultery going on.

    The idea that we don't stand for it doesn't really stand up.

    Charles - and Diana - were acting rather more like us than the image of monogamous perfect family the Royals had been selling us.

    Adultery is common, but not admirable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,376
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
    Maybe not technically/constitutionally, but in practice, in 21st century Britain, I think it does work like that.
    No, Charles will be king for sure.

    Because the media will rally round. You only have to look at the media this week talking in hushed tones about how William and Harry have updated the royal family to be in tune with new generation etc - yet YouGov shows vast majority of young people aren't remotely interested.

    But media won't reflect that - it'll be plough on regardless, this is what happens and isn't it wonderful.

    And the point is that what opposition there is isn't at all vocal - it's people who don't care enough to kick up any fuss.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,498
    Garrison Keillor fired from his radio job after 40 years.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    To the extent that I think about the Royal Family at all I get the impression that William and Kate are a bit lazy - though I get she's pregnant etc. But William - what the hell does he do? Charles does stuff, even if he does come across as a whingeing child sometimes. I quite like Camilla.

    But Will and Kate seem a bit entitled tbh and even with a young family I think they could pull their weight a bit more.

    Most of us live in glasshouses when it comes to having behaved very badly in a sexual relationship at least once in our lives, but the well-documented fact of Charles n Cams deciding to carry on exactly as usual all through his engagement to Diana, and taking up where they left off immediately after the honeymoon, really does make the expression "complete c*nt" appear inadequately critical.

    edited for clarity
    Is that what happened? I thought they picked up their relationship much later on when the marriage was already in trouble.

    I couldn't really care less, tbh. It is very difficult to understand what makes a marriage tick or not from the outside. But what amazes me is that no-one from Diana's aristocratic family, well used to serving the Royals and, presumably, well-used to what to expect, did not tell her what to expect. Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away? Fidelity is hardly common amongst royals or aristocrats after all.
    Are you sure you are not Prince Charles in disguise? Because "Has there been any PoW who hasn't played away?" is allegedly exactly what he said to Diana, and if that is his idea of how hereditary entitlement works I'm buggered if I am standing for the national anthem while he's on the throne. Men (not limited to PsoW) used to behave in all sorts of hideous ways which are just no longer acceptable.
    Look at the divorce rate in this country. There is a hell of a lot of adultery going on.

    The idea that we don't stand for it doesn't really stand up.

    Charles - and Diana - were acting rather more like us than the image of monogamous perfect family the Royals had been selling us.

    Well, that is sort of my point. Adultery per se isn't an issue; I am an adulterer myself, though only for the boring technical reason that decrees take time to become absolute. The specifics of their behaviour towards a hopelessly young, naive and frankly thick teenage girl are in a class of their own.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    I take any such thing with a pinch if salt. It's not cool to seem interested in such things, but while the media saturation does wear in the end, clearly they figure there's a market for it, the audience wants it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    MikeL said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
    Maybe not technically/constitutionally, but in practice, in 21st century Britain, I think it does work like that.
    No, Charles will be king for sure.

    Because the media will rally round. You only have to look at the media this week talking in hushed tones about how William and Harry have updated the royal family to be in tune with new generation etc - yet YouGov shows vast majority of young people aren't remotely interested.

    But media won't reflect that - it'll be plough on regardless, this is what happens and isn't it wonderful.

    And the point is that what opposition there is isn't at all vocal - it's people who don't care enough to kick up any fuss.
    Indeed, 68% back the monarchy to only 9% thinking it is a bad thing with 17% thinking it is neither in the last Yougov poll in 2015.

    Even 18 to 24s think the monarchy is good for Britain by 61% to 5%, an approval rating with that age group May and even Cameron would have killed for.
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313
    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 510
    DavidL said:

    Are we getting an American State back with this woman? And if so, which one?

    You can have North Dakota. No one here would even notice it's gone.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313
    AndyJS said:

    Garrison Keillor fired from his radio job after 40 years.

    Jesus, what has the world come to when you're not allowed to masturbate in front of colleagues?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    Of course its a Christmas film.

    But I'm amazed at Life of Brian being called one by that link. If anything it's far more an Easter film than a Christmas one.
    It's not a Christmas film if we're using the term as a genre. It just happens to be set at Christmas and could easily take place on any random holiday, or not a holiday at all . If you could remove Christmas entirely with a few minor script edits without sacrificing the thrust of the film, it's not really important. Is jack reacher 2 a Halloween film because part of it takes place around then?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,105
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    What system of government would anyone choose, starting from a blank slate?
  • Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    What system of government would anyone choose, starting from a blank slate?
    Directly Elected Dictator, elected under AV.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,523

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
    Of course Charles *could* inherit the throne and immediately abdicate, maybe even before his Coronation and that would all be above board.

    FWIW I don't see the big deal about Charles, he's waited long enough and we should let him have a go.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.

    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Probably not, but is it so bad it's worth the bother to change? Most say no some say yes. Frankly I'm surprised places like Canada haven't gotten rid of it, but again it's clearly not so bad it's worth the effort as far as they're concerned.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    rpjs said:

    DavidL said:

    Are we getting an American State back with this woman? And if so, which one?

    You can have North Dakota. No one here would even notice it's gone.
    Its even got a republican and a democrat as senators. It really would make little difference. She should talk to Trump about a suitable dowry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited November 29
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Given the possibility of a President Trump or Putin a constitutional monarchy is probably the best system we have for a Head of State, it ensures the role is apolitical and advertises the country. It is no surprise that of the nations which top the rankings as best to live in, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Canada etc almost all are constitutional monarchies.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,523
    edited November 29
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.

    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Probably not, but is it so bad it's worth the bother to change? Most say no some say yes. Frankly I'm surprised places like Canada haven't gotten rid of it, but again it's clearly not so bad it's worth the effort as far as they're concerned.
    Canada looks at the quality of the Heads of State in the republic to its south and recoils in horror.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    Essexit said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
    Of course Charles *could* inherit the throne and immediately abdicate, maybe even before his Coronation and that would all be above board.

    FWIW I don't see the big deal about Charles, he's waited long enough and we should let him have a go.
    The problem with Charles is that he really thinks he should have a "go". He completely fails to understand the role.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    kle4 said:

    If you could remove Christmas entirely with a few minor script edits without sacrificing the thrust of the film, it's not really important.

    John McLean is pending his Christmas vacation visiting his family for Christmas, and ends up at a Christmas party at his wife's firm.

    It's a Christmas movie
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,937
    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Who is the second son?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,899
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Garrison Keillor fired from his radio job after 40 years.

    Jesus, what has the world come to when you're not allowed to masturbate in front of colleagues?
    Now look. That's the sort of conduct I've had to read about in chats for bloody years. It gets boring. Please think of us middle aged women investigating you. Couldn't you do something a bit more interesting on the misbehaviour front? Use your imagination. Thank you.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Harry has sex appeal. His brother is about as sexy as a pint of milk. Still being boring is pretty essential for a would-be King.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    Essexit said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richly deserved kicking for Chas n Mills. When HMQ passes on there is going to be the mother of all constitutional crises when the people who think they like the monarchy realise that what they like is HMQ.

    This is why I think that, no matter what all the constitutional experts say, we are going to end up skipping Charles and going straight to King William. A monarch without overwhelming public support just isn't possible today I don't think.
    I’m not sure that that is how an hereditary monarchy works.
    Of course Charles *could* inherit the throne and immediately abdicate, maybe even before his Coronation and that would all be above board.

    FWIW I don't see the big deal about Charles, he's waited long enough and we should let him have a go.
    I understand why some have issues, as unlike the Queen we know some of his personal views and people take issue with that, but the monarchy as an institution while seemingly strong is on shaky foundations in that they only have to lose public support once and it could be all over, and he's probably had that drummed into him his whole life and abducting for someone more popular can go wrong if it becomes literally a popularity contest, I think he'll try to follow his mother's example.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    Ishmael_Z said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Who is the second son?
    Whoever the genetic father is there is only one real father, the one who brought him up after his mother died.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313
    rpjs said:

    DavidL said:

    Are we getting an American State back with this woman? And if so, which one?

    You can have North Dakota. No one here would even notice it's gone.
    North Dakota produces 33 million barrels of oil a month. I think you'd notice it'd gone.
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.

    2: Our national anthem.

    Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".

    I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    Essexit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.

    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Probably not, but is it so bad it's worth the bother to change? Most say no some say yes. Frankly I'm surprised places like Canada haven't gotten rid of it, but again it's clearly not so bad it's worth the effort as far as they're concerned.
    Canada looks at the quality of the Heads of State in the republic to its south and recoils in horror.
    Now maybe. Did they adore Obsma?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,831
    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.

    Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.

    Who is the second son?
    Whoever the genetic father is there is only one real father, the one who brought him up after his mother died.
    Harry is clearly a Windsor. He has some of Prince Philip in his younger days about him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    edited November 29

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    The REALLY big debate of the night should have been should I eat the tablet in my hotel room which was best before the end of November 2017?

    Well, too late now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
    Actually a decent point. I've never understood elected presidents with no real power (I know several places have them and it works), since if they're to mostly be above the day to day politics, you may as well just assign people at random.
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Yes absolutely. A non elected head of state serves a huge range of purposes that politics gets in the way of; not least allowing people to feel affinity and attachment for their country even when they are utterly opposed to the Government.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152
    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    rcs1000 said:

    rpjs said:

    DavidL said:

    Are we getting an American State back with this woman? And if so, which one?

    You can have North Dakota. No one here would even notice it's gone.
    North Dakota produces 33 million barrels of oil a month. I think you'd notice it'd gone.
    If they are going to start campaigning about it being North Dakota's oil the deal is off.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited November 29
    kle4 said:

    Essexit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.

    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Probably not, but is it so bad it's worth the bother to change? Most say no some say yes. Frankly I'm surprised places like Canada haven't gotten rid of it, but again it's clearly not so bad it's worth the effort as far as they're concerned.
    Canada looks at the quality of the Heads of State in the republic to its south and recoils in horror.
    Now maybe. Did they adore Obsma?
    They now get PM Trudeau (a Canadian Obama) and the Queen, 2 in 1.

    Apart from maybe Alberta and Saskatchewan, the rest of Canada loathes Trump even more than they loathed George W Bush
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,523
    kle4 said:

    Essexit said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.

    If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
    Probably not, but is it so bad it's worth the bother to change? Most say no some say yes. Frankly I'm surprised places like Canada haven't gotten rid of it, but again it's clearly not so bad it's worth the effort as far as they're concerned.
    Canada looks at the quality of the Heads of State in the republic to its south and recoils in horror.
    Now maybe. Did they adore Obsma?
    Possibly, but that would need to put in the context of Clinton, Bush, and that other fellow.
  • HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    edited November 29
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    If you could remove Christmas entirely with a few minor script edits without sacrificing the thrust of the film, it's not really important.

    John McLean is pending his Christmas vacation visiting his family for Christmas, and ends up at a Christmas party at his wife's firm.

    It's a Christmas movie
    I think you missed my point which was about theme and how much the film uses the setting - you could make it a random vacation and regular office party and the movie would not change bar a ho ho ho joke. It's not about Christmas (either in a religious sense or about things that only happen around Christmas, or that Christmas is a handy backdrop for the plot) it's just set during it.

    Isnt iron man 3 set at Christmas period? Is that a Christmas movie? (Actually I don't recall how much the setting plays into that one, so it might be, but still, mere setting does not equal a genre)
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Do you want to see other recent examples of your "fat thumbs"?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,749
    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,313
    Android fans: it now appears that Andy Rubin left Google because of "inappropriate" behaviour.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318
    DavidL said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    The REALLY big debate of the night should have been should I eat the tablet in my hotel room which was best before the end of November 2017?

    Well, too late now.
    had they upgraded it to the latest iOS?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321

    NBC Fires Matt Lauer Over Sexual Misconduct Allegation

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/media/nbc-matt-lauer.html

    I am alone in starting to feel a bit inadequate?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,152

    HYUFD said:

    What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.

    80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.



    I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.

    That's a typo by YouGov.

    I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
    Do you want to see other recent examples of your "fat thumbs"?
    Oh, and I hadn't actually read the thread and seen it was a tweet. I'd just seen the typo at the beginning of the vanilla thread and assumed it was the often fat thumbed Frenchman in control of things tonight! ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Why aren't we debating the biggest issues?

    Die Hard: Christmas film, or not?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/4729e8ae-ca0b-4d4a-a43a-36e29cc33296

    The REALLY big debate of the night should have been should I eat the tablet in my hotel room which was best before the end of November 2017?

    Well, too late now.
    had they upgraded it to the latest iOS?
    Hard to tell. Was quite crunchy.
This discussion has been closed.