Thread 44 Starmer - Knolraap en lof, schorseneren en prei.

[DuncinToffee]

Welcome to our long running thread for political discussion, general chit chat, a friendly hug and taxes in kind

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5486790-thread-43-starmer-il-ritorno-della-luce-e-la-semina-del-lathyrus-odoratus?page=40&reply=150629477

Found it. From 2012

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/prince-andrews-special-trade-envoy-job-not-an-open-one-says-labour-mp-6397989.html

But Tory Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) defended the prince. He said: "In my experience having done the shadow trade job, Prince Andrew goes around the world, opens a lot of doors, does a lot of trade for the UK, and I would have thought that your constituency needs the jobs that are created by businesses that export around the world."

Junior Business Minister Ed Davey also defended Prince Andrew. He told MPs: "I for one believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.
"He promotes UK business interests around the world and helps to attract inward investment to Britain.
.."He's had long-standing success in the role, representing the continued interest by the Royal Family in supporting British business and international trade and investment.
.... Mr Davey added: "I think his timing is particularly inappropriate, four days after the royal wedding when I believe the whole country showed the support they give to the Royal Family and all its members.
"I'm proud to be here supporting the role of His Royal Highness tonight."

I was just going to ask if you had linked to the right story @Lalgarh !

Oh dear.

I wonder how republicanism is faring at the moment ? Because a lot of people who have always had a problem with the royals could have their moment.

I can be 100% confident that in the past 4 decades - certain since adulthood - I have always been a sceptic about the monarchy. You won't find any cringy arslikhan words from my pen.

Well, that will haunt Davey - or should do.

I would say this is useless trivia but it turns out it really does matter - the convention in the HoC (in accordance with Erskine May) is that MPs 'should not cast reflections on the soveriegn or the royal family' - something to do with a MP suggesting Queen Victoria should abdicate. So opportunities to discuss the Royal Family in HoC have been limited.

However, if they want to discuss a specific issue regarding a member of the Royal Family (not the monarch) they can do it via a substantive motion.

The Institute for Government has an explainer.
Reminds me we have very peculiar rules designed to protect our betters.

It's a good time to change those rules. I doubt many people would object right now.

Good news for those of us in Wales.

Presumably the people of Lincolnshire are keen for fracking in their county.

“Fracking was effectively banned in England in 2019 because of concerns it could trigger earthquakes. But Jenkyns is keen to bring the practice to Lincolnshire and appears to have met fracking companies at least four times since she first contacted Egdon in June.
In a presentation marked “Confidential”, Heyco downplayed concerns about toxic chemicals found in fracking fluid. It also shared a list of rebuttals to key criticisms of fracking and its benefits over renewable forms of energy, which was tailored to the Gainsborough Trough project, the documents obtained by the Guardian show.
Jenkyns said she was “very supportive of fracking” in her message asking how she could help the company, sent to Egdon’s general inbox in June last year. The company’s CEO, Mark Abbott, responded 11 minutes later, offering to meet her to “discuss the potential for gas in Lincolnshire and the surrounding area”.

Goes without saying Egdon’s owners are Trump supporters.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/24/reform-uk-mayor-andrea-jenkyns-us-oil-gas-executive-fracking-lincolnshire

Fuck "changing the rules". Get rid of the ludicrous anachronism that is the Royal Family.

We might never get as good a price from the US again.

I just saw this from Reform:

Mr Farage added: "I'll be in Cardiff to launch the Welsh manifesto next Thursday. I hate leaks but I can give you a sneak preview. If we win the Welsh parliament elections Cardiff will no longer continue to be a city of sanctuary"

Well you're not going to win, so don't bother coming to Wales, you despicable fucker.

Start small and work towards that, I say.

Well at least he utter bullshit that the RF are in any way "appointed by God" has been blown wide open.

They clearly are - and have been since 1689 - political appointments. No more.

Jettisoning these spongers is ultimately an administrative task ...

If the King is removed as head of state then the UK will have to elect one, every 5 years. Imagine Nigel Farage as head of State, it could happen. Also it would require a written constitution which is welcome.

This is an honest question because nobody has ever managed to explain the answer to me when I’ve been critical of the monarchy. Why would we? Why do we need a Head of State separate to the PM?

He can fuck off for sure. Time for me to stock up on milkshake…
What does he think ‘City of Sanctuary’ is and what effect does he think removing the name will have?
I guess I’m assuming he thinks…

This is a bit of a weird story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3gqr7p0lqo
I mean, I’m not suggesting it’s not true but chocolate? Cadbury’s chocolate?

It's a great question. And I can't answer it other than this country is not a republic with a written constitution. It was once a Republic from 1649 to 1660 - the Interregnum.

Republicans want to abolish the Monarchy with an elected head of state and a written constitution.

I dislike the whole monarchial system. It serves no purpose. People who say it brings in lots of tourism are those who run down London.

No disrespect, but why would the UK - as a sovereign nation "have" to elect anyone to do anything ?

There are a myriad ways to run a country without a monarch.

Tony Benn always noted that the "case" for monarchy was always made by the fiction there was only one alternative.

And frankly, the whole "You can remove a president" line is really looking a bit wrong, as we cast our eyes and minds westwards.

If we have to have an elected head of state, it would be trivial to ensure they have never stood in any capacity previously. If you want to be president then you come in with no party political affiliations. Which fulfils the truism that people who seek power should under no circumstances ever be allowed within a country mile of it.

Imagine if they had tasted real chocolate ? It'd blow their fucking minds.

It was once a Republic from 1649 to 1660 - the Interregnum.

It wasn't. It really wasn't.

"Republicanism" as practiced by the US was a system lifted from the ancient Roman system where the plebians were kept in check by the patrician and latterly equestrian classes. If anyone believes the founding fathers gave two shits about the riff raff running the place then they really haven't read the constitution. It is a system that deliberately ensures that the ruling is done by the wealthy. As it was in the Rome they nicked it from.

https://lancashire.thelead.uk/p/lancashire-county-council-reform-uk-deputy-leader-simon-evans-natalie-fleet-social-media-post-grooming-gangs

We can reveal Reform UK will take no action against their deputy leader in Lancashire after he reshared social media content calling for a Labour MP to be shot.

The party considers the post, which was aimed at Labour MP for Bolsover and grooming gangs inquiry campaigner Natalie Fleet, to have been an ‘honest mistake’.

And Danny Kruger wants to undo the sexual revolution, 'women know your place'

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/danny-kruger-if-dont-win-win-make-mess-it-fear-country

I’m not sure IDS, for all his faults, would like that comparison with Farage…

I'd like to see him try that line on , say, Glasgow.

He was 'against the introduction of no fault divorces'.

I mean JFC. Has he ever spoken to any family lawyers? Presumably he'd like to go back to the days of having to list unreasonable behaviours or adultery. Or just no divorces at all.

making divorce more difficult doesn't mean more happy couples. it just means more conflict. The man's an idiot.