• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The brits are in for a rough ride

Page 40 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Can you imagine living in a country that jails its citizens for what they post on social media or better yet arrest them for misgendering someone. A country such as that should be invaded, taken apart and put back together the right way.
Damn, I didn't get to ignore him first.
 
what does your heart say?

/they are not required, however Liz voluntarily started to pay taxes in '93
//'it's complicated'


It is very complicated. The problem really is that the Royal Family are so massively integrated into the state itself. In some senses they _are_ the state (so how does the state tax itself?)

The French got it right, once they got rid of their Royals they knew they'd been gotten rid of, and they _stayed_ gotten rid of.

Ours came back and melded themselves into the heart of the state itself. Pretty disastrous, IMO, and I don't fully understand how that happened, but it seems, as far as I understand it, to be a consequence of the way the anti-Royalist fight got completely entangled with both a religious conflict (Catholics vs Protestants) and a war between the constituent nations of Britain (Scotland, Ireland and England, mostly). Somehow the complications of that mess let the Royal freeloaders sneak back in again.

In theory the money they get from the 'civil list' was supposed to be payback for the partial-appropriation of much of their assets, but they also got, in return for that, relief from having to pay for the full cost of running the country.
 
It is very complicated. The problem really is that the Royal Family are so massively integrated into the state itself. In some senses they _are_ the state (so how does the state tax itself?)

The French got it right, once they got rid of their Royals they knew they'd been gotten rid of, and they _stayed_ gotten rid of.

Ours came back and melded themselves into the heart of the state itself. Pretty disastrous, IMO, and I don't fully understand how that happened, but it seems, as far as I understand it, to be a consequence of the way the anti-Royalist fight got completely entangled with both a religious conflict (Catholics vs Protestants) and a war between the constituent nations of Britain (Scotland, Ireland and England, mostly). Somehow the complications of that mess let the Royal freeloaders sneak back in again.

In theory the money they get from the 'civil list' was supposed to be payback for the partial-appropriation of much of their assets, but they also got, in return for that, relief from having to pay for the full cost of running the country.
Another obstacle to this seems to be (at least from the Brits I know) that large swaths of the country have genuine affection for this institution. I'll never forget my friend who has spent a bunch of his life clearing mines in war zones for the poorest people on the planet going absolutely apeshit for William's royal wedding.
 
Another obstacle to this seems to be (at least from the Brits I know) that large swaths of the country have genuine affection for this institution. I'll never forget my friend who has spent a bunch of his life clearing mines in war zones for the poorest people on the planet going absolutely apeshit for William's royal wedding.


Yes, "William", that's it! Entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand but I was yet again struggling to remember his name...for some reason I can never, ever, remember that guy's name, so many times have had to google it. I can remember "Harry" (who just seems to be objectively more memorable) but then my mind always goes completely blank as to what the other one's called....keep coming up with "Harry and Paul", but that's these guys

 
Is there something in the UK that Netantard is dying for?

The people who run Israel are well-used to the idea that they're untouchable. They engage in a lot of state manipulation, and the kind of people who play those games enjoy it. The idea of visiting a state that has officially said it will arrest you but you know it won't because of your influence is an expression of that power.

Kowtowing to Israel is not seen in the same light as kowtowing to Russia, unfortunately. Putin knows perfectly well that his arrest in a Western country (except possibly the GQP US, sadly) would be virtually unanimously seen as a good thing by people in that country. The games that Russia plays against Western nations have to be played in secret.
 

article said:
Net migration into the UK hit a record 906,000 in the year to June 2023, much higher than previously thought, official figures show.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) originally estimated it was 740,000 but has now revised this figure upwards by 166,000.
It said annual net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving the country - has since fallen to 728,000 in the year to June 2024.
Sir Keir Starmer seized on the figures - which cover a period before Labour took office - to accuse the Tories of “running an open borders experiment”.
He called the increase in net migration in recent years "off the scale".
The PM promised that proposals for new laws to bring immigration down would be published "imminently".

I wish I knew whether current-Labour are trying to be the tories, tory-lite or they're playing 3D chess to make the public/media believe that they're like that so therefore they're not being blasted as bogeyman socialists every single day while they actually get some useful work done.

I think I'm holding on to a strand of hope that we're not exactly like the US with only two options to realistically choose from: far right and right wing.
 



I wish I knew whether current-Labour are trying to be the tories, tory-lite or they're playing 3D chess to make the public/media believe that they're like that so therefore they're not being blasted as bogeyman socialists every single day while they actually get some useful work done.

I think I'm holding on to a strand of hope that we're not exactly like the US with only two options to realistically choose from: far right and right wing.


At least they aren't proposing anything as mad as Trump's tariff plan. 25% blanket tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico, unless those countries somehow solve the US's massive social problem with drug addiction. Increased inflation is just the start of the horrors that policy will unleash on the US.

It's plan akin to repeatedly punching yourself in the face while insisting you'll keep doing it until someone else fixes your problems for you.

Seems it's not just migrants now that are the cause of all ills, but foreign goods as well. All we have to do is hermetically seal ourselves off and stop all contact or dealings with anyone outside the borders and we'll all magically become rich.
 
At least they aren't proposing anything as mad as Trump's tariff plan. 25% blanket tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico, unless those countries somehow solve the US's massive social problem with drug addiction. Increased inflation is just the start of the horrors that policy will unleash on the US.
We're just a decade or two behind the curve before at least the tories start pulling this shit (though IMO they already tried it on a bit with BJ). The only potential game-changer is if the GQP crashes and burns before then.


Another example of our politics being very similar to the Americans: The tories are like "rules, what rules?" <burns the ministerial code>, and Labour is like "well, I committed this technicality of an offence before I became an MP, therefore I should fall on my own sword", rather like the Dems, along with Labour's half-hearted uninspiring election campaign.
 
Last edited:
^^^
Yes, the question is whether we're "behind the curve" or "ahead" of it. Will Starmer be our Biden - a one-term centrist damp-squib with SFA of a 'legacy' - to be followed by the return of the head-banging xenophobic right? Seems to me a lot of things point to the latter (though Starmer at least isn't a zillion years old and still seems to have all his faculties)
 
^^^
Yes, the question is whether we're "behind the curve" or "ahead" of it. Will Starmer be our Biden - a one-term centrist damp-squib with SFA of a 'legacy' - to be followed by the return of the head-banging xenophobic right? Seems to me a lot of things point to the latter (though Starmer at least isn't a zillion years old and still seems to have all his faculties)

I think the fact that a lot of our conservatives sulked and stayed at home in the last election means they'll be back in force plus all the voters who didn't get the moon on the stick from Labour and have had a lot of dubiously truthful right-wing talking points drummed into them for 12+ months before the next election.

If Starmer has his head screwed on right, he would realise that he needs to have sufficient evidence of the good that Labour has done rather than the standard political routine of trying to do their homework the night before by announcing populist policies 5 minutes before the election.

I'm wondering whether BJ will be back for the next election or Farage will have a shot, judging by the stupidity going on over the Atlantic.
 
Badenoch playing-the-victim-card in an utterly opportunist fashion.

Though the other thing that occurs to me is the irony of someone famous for being extremely hostile to the idea that someone can change gender, apparently believes you can achieve a class-transition simply by working at McDonalds for a week.


"I grew up in a middle class family, but I became working class when I was 16 working at McDonald's," she told Chopper's Political Podcast with Christopher Hope.

Then she claims that any criticism of that absurd statement is defacto 'racist'?
 
Badenoch playing-the-victim-card in an utterly opportunist fashion.

Though the other thing that occurs to me is the irony of someone famous for being extremely hostile to the idea that someone can change gender, apparently believes you can achieve a class-transition simply by working at McDonalds for a week.




Then she claims that any criticism of that absurd statement is defacto 'racist'?

I hope Kemi stays the leader of the Tories.

That'll be the easiest election Labor will win in a 100 years.
 
Badenoch playing-the-victim-card in an utterly opportunist fashion.

Though the other thing that occurs to me is the irony of someone famous for being extremely hostile to the idea that someone can change gender, apparently believes you can achieve a class-transition simply by working at McDonalds for a week.




Then she claims that any criticism of that absurd statement is defacto 'racist'?
c'mon now, they had an online petition and overwhelmingly wanted a new election
 
I hope Kemi stays the leader of the Tories.

That'll be the easiest election Labor will win in a 100 years.

I really don't know. She's quite extreme, and very wooden (as a speaker and interviewee) so one would think so, but, I don't know how extreme the electorate are becoming, here just as in the US. And Starmer's not exactly an inspiring and charismatic figure either (_all_ our politicians these days seem to be increasingly robotic...May, Truss, Sunak, Starmer, all as bad as each other...makes one wonder if AI hasn't advanced much further than we've been told).
 
Meh, come back when it's 79%. That's the only way to avoid do-overs for the rest of time.

Conservatives will just forget about the conveniences of the EU after a few years and default to hating all foreigners.

Honestly if the day comes the UK gets serious about going back in they are gonna balk hard at the term sheet which is going to be little different than any other country looking to join, instead of the highly preferential arraignment they had. Zero chance of another sweet deal after all this.
 
Honestly if the day comes the UK gets serious about going back in they are gonna balk hard at the term sheet which is going to be little different than any other country looking to join, instead of the highly preferential arraignment they had. Zero chance of another sweet deal after all this.

Can't see us actually joining the EU again as membership of the Euro is compulsory now afaik and that would be politically a non starter.
I could see some sort of free trade agreement though.
And yeah, we aren't getting our sweet previous EU deal back!
 
Back
Top