Boris's days probably numbered.

[mikeymikec]

I'm not so sure about that. While DigDog overstates the case the other way, I wonder whether the monarchy is as powerless as you say.

In general the powers of 'The Crown' have been comprehensively appropriated by the Prime Minister of the day (and its the residue of the absolute monarchy that makes the UK system potentially quite undemocratic, e.g. it was through the powers of 'The Crown' that the UK government sacked the Australian Prime Minister - probably in turn acting on behalf of the American President!).

My counterpoint is very simple: What use is wielding power if you do not use it, and if you feel that you cannot use it then do you really have it. If the Queen truly has such power, then why has she never used it to assert her own will in any manner. She's been in power for how many years, and she's never once disagreed with any of the governing parties that have been and gone?

IMO the truth of the matter is that the monarchy's position is more fragile than the BBC's. The government holds the purse strings for both organisations, which is why you'll never see BBC News TV launch a scathing attack on the government (unless they know they're about to have their funding cut off I guess). However, if the Queen actually pulled something that is significant and contrary to the government's will, she not only has to worry about her immediate living arrangements but also that while 61% of the UK apparently support the existence of the monarchy, if her action was spun as an anti-democratic move against the government, I bet that support percentage would disappear in no time at all. It's one thing to have a potentially likeable/benign tradition which pulls in tourism money, it's another thing to bring down democracy and replace it with a bunch of ultra upper class fops who literally have had everything handed to them. There's no in-between option. Parliament would have to ask themselves that if Queenie is willing to get involved and assert her own will in some way, then how far will she go? The vote to dissolve the monarchy would happen as quickly and as decisively as any competent attempt to put down a coup.

 

[fskimospy]

My counterpoint is very simple: What use is wielding power if you do not use it, and if you feel that you cannot use it then do you really have it. If the Queen truly has such power, then why has she never used it to assert her own will in any manner. She's been in power for how many years, and she's never once disagreed with any of the governing parties that have been and gone?

IMO the truth of the matter is that the monarchy's position is more fragile than the BBC's. The government holds the purse strings for both organisations, which is why you'll never see BBC News TV launch a scathing attack on the government (unless they know they're about to have their funding cut off I guess). However, if the Queen actually pulled something that is significant and contrary to the government's will, she not only has to worry about her immediate living arrangements but also that while 61% of the UK apparently support the existence of the monarchy, if her action was spun as an anti-democratic move against the government, I bet that support percentage would disappear in no time at all. It's one thing to have a potentially likeable/benign tradition which pulls in tourism money, it's another thing to bring down democracy and replace it with a bunch of ultra upper class fops who literally have had everything handed to them. There's no in-between option. Parliament would have to ask themselves that if Queenie is willing to get involved and assert her own will in some way, then how far will she go? The vote to dissolve the monarchy would happen as quickly and as decisively as any competent attempt to put down a coup.

Yeah the UK is not alone in this regard where you have a figurehead monarch who is supposedly in power but in effect has almost none.

Thailand is a good example where no laws can be passed without the assent of the king and even speaking poorly of the king is a criminal offense but everyone knows he has symbolic power at best. If he attempted to defy the government he would quickly find himself ‘taken ill’ and confined his room or whatever.

I think there are rare circumstances where these monarchs still could exert real power, but for the most part I think that is confined to situations where the real government is in turmoil, paralyzed for some reason, etc. Like if there were some sort of factional conflict where two sides simultaneously claimed power I could see the monarch potentially tipping the scales. That’s about it though.

 

[pmv]

My counterpoint is very simple: What use is wielding power if you do not use it, and if you feel that you cannot use it then do you really have it. If the Queen truly has such power, then why has she never used it to assert her own will in any manner. She's been in power for how many years, and she's never once disagreed with any of the governing parties that have been and gone?

IMO the truth of the matter is that the monarchy's position is more fragile than the BBC's. The government holds the purse strings for both organisations, which is why you'll never see BBC News TV launch a scathing attack on the government (unless they know they're about to have their funding cut off I guess). However, if the Queen actually pulled something that is significant and contrary to the government's will, she not only has to worry about her immediate living arrangements but also that while 61% of the UK apparently support the existence of the monarchy, if her action was spun as an anti-democratic move against the government, I bet that support percentage would disappear in no time at all. It's one thing to have a potentially likeable/benign tradition which pulls in tourism money, it's another thing to bring down democracy and replace it with a bunch of ultra upper class fops who literally have had everything handed to them. There's no in-between option. Parliament would have to ask themselves that if Queenie is willing to get involved and assert her own will in some way, then how far will she go? The vote to dissolve the monarchy would happen as quickly and as decisively as any competent attempt to put down a coup.

Well, there's this sort of thing

Royal family given secret deal over tax breaks

Secret deals between Buckingham Palace and the Treasury have ensured that the royal family enjoys tax breaks far beyond the £20m saving that the Queen made on inheritance tax after her mother's death, according to official papers uncovered by the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com

Queen’s secret influence on laws revealed in Scottish government memo

Exclusive: Internal memo admits ‘it is almost certain’ laws altered to secure monarch’s consent

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-what-the-secret-letters-actually-say/

 

[Ajay]

Well, there's this sort of thing

Royal family given secret deal over tax breaks

Secret deals between Buckingham Palace and the Treasury have ensured that the royal family enjoys tax breaks far beyond the £20m saving that the Queen made on inheritance tax after her mother's death, according to official papers uncovered by the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com

Queen’s secret influence on laws revealed in Scottish government memo

Exclusive: Internal memo admits ‘it is almost certain’ laws altered to secure monarch’s consent

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-what-the-secret-letters-actually-say/

I don't understand how you Brits put up with this stuff. I mean, she's as much as public persona as it gets in GBR. Aren't they aren't they on the government dole as well?

Personally, I don't care, not my country, still...

 

[pmv]

I don't understand how you Brits put up with this stuff. I mean, she's as much as public persona as it gets in GBR. Aren't they aren't they on the government dole as well?

Personally, I don't care, not my country, still...

It's a funny thing, really. How power works. I disagree with mikeymikec - the Royals _do_ have real power, and they use it mainly to secure their own self-interest. But where that power stems from is hard to explain. It's like it's embedded in the mindset and attitudes of a large proportion of the population. There's a deference towards them, that comes from the way in which their status has become part of the very identity of many people, so rejecting it would carry a cost - maybe in good part a psychological one?

I dunno, it's generally weird the way power works. It's not always just based on weapons and the threat of violent force. Heirarchies get embedded in people's very sense of identity such that the disruption involved in changing things is not worth it to people. I suppose the power of the Supreme Court is vaguely analogous.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's a funny thing, really. How power works. I disagree with mikeymikec - the Royals _do_ have real power, and they use it mainly to secure their own self-interest. But where that power stems from is hard to explain. It's like it's embedded in the mindset and attitudes of a large proportion of the population. There's a deference towards them, that comes from the way in which their status has become part of the very identity of many people, so rejecting it would carry a cost - maybe in good part a psychological one?

I dunno, it's generally weird the way power works. It's not always just based on weapons and the threat of violent force. Heirarchies get embedded in people's very sense of identity such that the disruption involved in changing things is not worth it to people. I suppose the power of the Supreme Court is vaguely analogous.

I basically agree with you up to a point. The UK's laws have grown and evolved around the fact that the UK was under monarchy rule and that steadily morphed until democratic rule but with deference to the fact that the royal family still sat and looked like they had ruling jobs. A customer told me a while ago that the government was able to go onto her land to scout for shale gas deposits due to the nature of UK land ownership which says something like the first x of depth of land belongs to the person who buys it, but the rest belongs to the crown.

I haven't gone through the entirety of that second link you sent me but it seemed to me like royal approval is sought in a sense that the Queen is still the ruler... over explicitly her stuff and gets a say about laws that affect her stuff.

I completely agree with you that the monarchy has a staying power with the populace and I described the nature of what would likely be needed in order to dissolve the monarchy, the royals would have to do something that stupid.

In my experience, most people who seek power love to wield it. The idea that the royals still have 'ruling power' in the UK but never really use it mostly flies in the face of what I just said; I think if they did have that kind of power, it would be extremely difficult to resist flaunting it in some way, especially to such ultra-privileged people. While the royals aren't like typical politicians who entirely choose to seek power, they're mostly born into the role, IMO that only serves to encourage delusional levels of entitlement like it does with nth generation rich kids.

But where that power stems from is hard to explain. It's like it's embedded in the mindset and attitudes of a large proportion of the population.

That is the nature of power. It's the nature of a lot of things in developed societies, like currency and laws. A lot of imaginary concepts, behavioural guidelines, that civilised people choose to go along with. It's why when the likes of Trump and Boris come along, the fragility of the rules of civilised society become obvious.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[pmv]

In my experience, most people who seek power love to wield it. The idea that the royals still have 'ruling power' in the UK but never really use it mostly flies in the face of what I just said; I think if they did have that kind of power, it would be extremely difficult to resist flaunting it in some way, especially to such ultra-privileged people. While the royals aren't like typical politicians who entirely choose to seek power, they're mostly born into the role, IMO that only serves to encourage delusional levels of entitlement like it does with nth generation rich kids.

Well, it seems they _do_ use that power, if only in a pretty narrow way to look after their own self-interests, as those links showed. But also Elizabeth is pretty clearly restrained by a strong sense of 'duty' - she's as subject to the power of internalised ideology as everyone else.
That's the peculiar thing, the Royals are in a way as trapped in the system as the rest of us. Perhaps it always works like that? Isn't there some quote about "in freeing himself the slave frees his master"?
But I'm not sure Charles has the same sense of restraint and duty as his mother has. When he takes the throne he might bend the system to breaking point.

 

[cytg111]

Does the royal family command anything with boots and guns?

It is a weird thing... But criticizing royals in Europe is like political taboo, if there was anything that would make me consider a "deep state" kind of thing its the handling of the royal families. I mean it makes no fucking sense.

 

[Atari2600]

I gotta tell you, it's taken me some courage to write this, because i reeeally dont feel like defending BJ. But here we are.

I am struggling to find one shred of that post that is in any way correct.

I guess maybe the courage bit about writing it could be true.

 

[DigDog]

I am struggling to find one shred of that post that is in any way correct.

I guess maybe the courage bit about writing it could be true.

ok guy.

 

[shortylickens]

Jonathan Pie has a few words to say...

"Reshuffling cat shit on a litter tray."

Fucking gold. I'm putting that on a bumper sticker.

 

[pmv]

Interesting contradiction in the race to succeed Johnson as PM.

On an individual level the Tory candidates are remarkably diverse (especially by historical standards of UK politics). Of 11 candidates, fewer than half are white, and four are women. Almost half of them are of South Asian ancestry.
Yet they are all competing to be probably the most hard-right PM we've ever had. Every one of them comes across as a class-war warrior for the rich (at least one is on record as being a big Ayn Rand fan), and most of them are rabidly nationalist and eager to pander to the anti-migrant and anti-foreigner sentiments in the electorate (especially the Baby Boomer part of it).

Seems to demonstrate the total bankruptcy of at least one form of 'identity politics'. But maybe there's more to it than that. Why does the individualist (yet also nationalist) right do a better job than the left of allowing individual members of minority groups to rise to the top? Even though it never seems to do the rest of those groups any good.

 

[pmv]

The race is on!

I don't care which one wins, they are all equally awful. A parade of plutocrats and reactionaries, competing to out right-wing each other to win the favour of the tiny sect of elderly Tory Party members.

All that interests me in the coverage is that this poll - looking at their popularity with the electorate as a whole - found 12% of those members of the general public surveyed reckoned they knew a lot about Stewart Lewis. He's certainly my preferred candidate, on account of being entirely fictional and invented by the polling company as some sort of "control sample" to test their polling methodology.

However, 12% of people told Ipsos that they knew either a great deal or a fair amount about Stewart Lewis, a fake candidate created by the pollster.

Some 6% even said they knew “a great deal” about the non-existent Mr Lewis, more than the 5% who said the same thing about Ms Braverman, the Attorney General, and the same proportion as for Ms Badenoch and Mr Tugendhat.

Public still ‘unfamiliar’ with most Tory leadership candidates – poll

An Ipsos survey found some candidates were barely more well known than a fake MP created by the pollster

www.standard.co.uk

 

[DigDog]

last PMQ:

go about 9 minutes in; the man's laughing, not crying, not angry, or depressed, or bitter. He doesnt feel defeated, that is the face of a man who did his job and will now retire to reap the benefits.

What "his job" is, is up for debate. Please dont labour under the illusion that a PM's job is to help the masses.

 

[pmv]

I reckon that the vast majority of the blame for the current state of the country lies with Clegg and Cameron. Johnson is not important either way, he's just a (slightly comedic) footnote or post-credits sequence.

It was those two who were really responsible for Brexit, and whose austerity policies are the reason that nothing in this country is now functioning properly - the NHS, the DWP, the court system, the prison system, the passport office, the DLVC, the police...nothing works any more. Johnson just wanted his turn in the top job, so he could avoid losing some game with Cameron and the other Bullingdon boys. He had a good time, made a bit of cash, and got to put PM on his CV, I suspect that's all he really cares about.

 

[pmv]

It's really startlingly obvious that Johnson never had any particular agenda he wanted to push as PM. He just wanted the job on his CV and the chance to exploit to the max all the perks that come with it.

‘Hive of inactivity’: Boris Johnson under fire for approach to final weeks as PM

Leading author accuses Tory leader of going ‘missing in action’ as his premiership winds down

www.theguardian.com

It's as if all these post-Thatcher Tories are dilettantes, interested in nothing other than competing with each other for career 'success'.

 

[uallas5]

At least he's not trying to seize power by having his supporters storm Parliament...though I'd seriously wonder if he had those type of supporters. Definitely nowhere near the "cultiness" of the orange one.

 

[pmv]

At least he's not trying to seize power by having his supporters storm Parliament...though I'd seriously wonder if he had those type of supporters. Definitely nowhere near the "cultiness" of the orange one.

Really hard to compare and contrast them. Johnson didn't seem to have the same kind of fanatical cult following, but they both had the element of being 'grifters', out for what they could personally get from the job, rather than wanting to change the world. But Johnson, being more educated and less of a philistine, seemed to have far more modest aims in terms of financial gain, being motivated by a desire for the kind of minor 'perks' that would barely register for Trump (free accomodation! Expensive wallpaper! chance to use the PM country residence as a wedding venue! A free flight in an RAF jet! .

 

[fskimospy]

Really hard to compare and contrast them. Johnson didn't seem to have the same kind of fanatical cult following, but they both had the element of being 'grifters', out for what they could personally get from the job, rather than wanting to change the world. But Johnson, being more educated and less of a philistine, seemed to have far more modest aims in terms of financial gain, being motivated by a desire for the kind of minor 'perks' that would barely register for Trump (free accomodation! Expensive wallpaper! chance to use the PM country residence as a wedding venue! A free flight in an RAF jet! .

I think the primary difference is Johnson is a self aggrandizing narcissist and while Trump is also this Trump is a lifelong criminal.

Like, I think Boris Johnson is a piece of shit but Trump is essentially an organized crime boss.

 

[pmv]

Looks like we're going to end up with Truss - a cross between Theresa May and Boris Johnson. All the charisma and people-skills of the former, combined with the politics of the latter. If she wins a general election the only conclusion would be the population has lost its collective mind. But surely even a safety-first empty-suit like Starmer couldn't manage to lose against her?

 

[pmv]

It really is "alright for some". Johnson's been spotted on his second holiday of the summer. Now he's having a nice time in Greece (having just come back from Slovenia). I guess he's making sure he uses up all his accumulated holiday time before going.

If you realise you have failed at your job, it probably does make sense to get as much money and perks out of it and have a good time before you go.

The contrast between Boris and his party's utter lack of interest in governing, and the scale of the problems the country is facing, really has to be unprecedented in UK history. Why do we not have a government?
(As well as the Ukraine war, the imminent greatest drop in living standards since the 1830s - probably with accompanying crime waves and even civil disorder - a wave of strikes, a heatwave, a pandemic, a collapsing NHS which will get even worse come the winter, there's now a serious water shortage, thanks in part to the privatisation of the water companies.)

Would probably be a good moment for Putin to invade. A Russian ambhibious assault and Spetznatz paratroop landings in Central London might just merit a brief question in the Tory leadership hustings, before they return to discussing tax-cuts and asylum-seekers.

Maybe they'd even find some obscure junior minister that nobody's ever heard of to make a statement condemning Russian aggression? Johnson would probably miss the Cobra meeting, though.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-spotted-greece-second-114910849.html

 

[uallas5]

It really is "alright for some". Johnson's been spotted on his second holiday of the summer. Now he's having a nice time in Greece (having just come back from Slovenia). I guess he's making sure he uses up all his accumulated holiday time before going.

If you realise you have failed at your job, it probably does make sense to get as much money and perks out of it and have a good time before you go.

The contrast between Boris and his party's utter lack of interest in governing, and the scale of the problems the country is facing, really has to be unprecedented in UK history. Why do we not have a government?
(As well as the Ukraine war, the imminent greatest drop in living standards since the 1830s - probably with accompanying crime waves and even civil disorder - a wave of strikes, a heatwave, a pandemic, a collapsing NHS which will get even worse come the winter, there's now a serious water shortage, thanks in part to the privatisation of the water companies.)

Would probably be a good moment for Putin to invade. A Russian ambhibious assault and Spetznatz paratroop landings in Central London might just merit a brief question in the Tory leadership hustings, before they return to discussing tax-cuts and asylum-seekers.

Maybe they'd even find some obscure junior minister that nobody's ever heard of to make a statement condemning Russian aggression? Johnson would probably miss the Cobra meeting, though.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-spotted-greece-second-114910849.html

I thought this was a good article articulating what you were talking about and how the Tories are managing to be both simultaneously useless and highly damaging right now.

Britain is plunging deeper into crisis by the day, but its government is missing in action - CNN

 

[pmv]

I thought this was a good article articulating what you were talking about and how the Tories are managing to be both simultaneously useless and highly damaging right now.

Britain is plunging deeper into crisis by the day, but its government is missing in action - CNN

I don't know what the reason is why the Conservatives are refusing to actually govern, when it's most desperately needed. That article suggests 'laziness and complacency', though I think it's maybe that Johnson is sulking, or has mentally 'checked out', upset that his dreams of Churchillian glory have ended so ignominiously. He was really a complete damp squib as PM. Even more of a flop than his 'frenemy' Cameron.

I'm not impressed with Starmer either. As opposition leader he is almost as ineffectual at opposing as the government is at governing. His desperate attempts to distance Labour from any of the multiple strikes breaking out just makes the party look even more inert and pointless.

 

[pmv]

This winter looks like it's going to be very grim. I'm dreading it. I've already resolved to try and get through it without turning the heating on at all (nearly managed it last year, save for a few days over Christmans), and have entirely given up using the oven (microwave only from now on!).

Power bills are rocketing (more than four-fold price increases), they are predicted to, by this winter, make up more than 10% of household income for more than half the population. For lower-income groups they are predicted to exceed 120% of total household income within a year. For small businesses it's even worse - loads of them are going to go bust.

But the worry is less paying my own bills, and more what effect this is going to have on nature of society.

Because not only is there the energy/inflation crisis, COVID is still raging away, the NHS has not recovered from the ravages of the Pandemic plus years of Tory austerity, and of course there's Brexit. And a drought. And a spectacularly useless government that looks as if it will be led by an even bigger buffoon than Johnson was. Truss appears to be entirely out of touch with reality. Sunak would have been preferable - he's a slick, self-serving cynic, but at least seems aware of reality - Truss seems to live in a world of her own.

We also are particularly ill-prepared for both power and water shortages, because of years of wretched neo-liberalism meaning no strategic planning and an obsession with short-term profit-extraction over long-term investment.

Crime will doubtless increase, the NHS is predicted to come close to collapse this winter, and there will be lots more strikes. Probably will be a rise in racist sentiment as well, and just a general state of everyone being angry and unsympathetic to everyone else, because everyone being stressed about their own financial problems.

I don't think it's entirely because of the Ukraine war. It's at least as much due to decades of failed right-wing policies (all those neo-liberal-ideology-driven privatisations, then financial-sector deregulation and the crash, then austerity, then Brexit and finally a government with no interest in governing...).