Panto_Villan

Indeed. The thing being punished is the inheritance itself, which is kinda the point. Not that most of the electorate see it that way.

True. And just to make it clear - while I stick up for the Queen in this thread I'd happily jack inheritance tax up to punitive levels if I was PM. I respect her as an individual but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the landed gentry she is part of.

Good knowledge!

Do you really think any family gets to ascend to the throne without already being extremely rich and influential? They might be richer now, but I somehow doubt William would be a binman if some other aristocrat had ended up with the crown a few generations back.

For me it's more about the restrictions you have to accept as part of the role. The Queen has been a good monarch because she doesn't have public opinions on anything at all political or controversial (not sure if you remember the absolute fury from the palace when the Brexiteers claimed she was pro-Brexit), she's always managed to maintain a dignified presence despite spending enormous amounts of time on public engagements and there being cameras literally everywhere she goes. Basically she has to meet vast numbers of people every year while also not doing anything that stops her being a blank slate that the rest of the country can project onto, which means she can't actually really use her money and power to do anything. Charles is unpopular because he apparently didn't realise this and tried to use his position to have opinions and influence things - which is a disaster waiting to happen really. Frankly the country will get rid of the monarchy if they try to do anything except smile and wave. They're here for our entertainment these days. I think you underestimate her workload too. The only figure I found with a quick google was that in 2015 she did 341 engagements, but that's a hell of a lot for an 89-year old. If I was worth $500m would I want to spend my entire life making bland small talk with people and getting wheeled out every time there's a visiting head of state, even when I'm in my 90s? No. I'd live like Jack Grealish on steroids. Or at least start interfering in politics.

I'm actually surprised it has come to this given the Tory party has stuck with him so long despite his obvious flaws. I guess it's finally dawned on them that the polls aren't going to improve unless they change leader. I'm not sure what outcome I want really. Probably for Boris to continue limping along, mortally wounded and bleeding support. This country has been in complete political paralysis since the day after the Brexit referendum though and another 3+ years of a government incapable of governing isn't going to be good either. It's already been six years. Hopefully they'll call a new election sooner rather than later.

Didn't David Davis stand in about 400 Tory leadership elections?

Also, to go on a bit of a tangent, there's probably at least a couple of billion people who would snap your hand off to get the life of literally any citizen of this country. We've all benefitted massively from being born into a wealthy country with a good education system that we individually did f-all to earn. It's easy to rail against "the rich" and "the priviledged" but there's an element of glass houses at work here too imo. Very few people ever seem to consider themselves part of those categories despite what the statistics might imply.

Of course, but that's not really an argument against the royal family per se. They're not rich because they're the royal family, they're rich because they're part of the aristocracy from which all of our royal families throughout history have emerged - the Queen would still be incredibly wealthy if she hadn't taken a single penny from the taxpayer in her life (e.g. the Spencer family is still worth £100m+ despite not being royal blood). You're making an argument against excessive inherited wealth and for what it's worth I agree with you. Nonetheless I still respect a lady worth £500m devoting literally her entire life to trying to unite the country as best she can.

No, but they’re a perfect example of what you did mention, right? The monarchy no longer existing and the royal assets all being transferred to the state. I think money can quite easily buy that lifestyle. Living in a nice house and getting your needs attended to by others. Anyone worth £5-10m could have that lifestyle without all the bullshit and lack of privacy that goes with being a royal. I reckon there’s very few millionaires in this country who would be the next king / queen. Any middling celebrity / influencer or PL footballer or (child of a) wealthy businessman probably has a much more luxurious and less restricted existence. Theres a reason why the independently wealthy (though hardly A-list) Meghan Markle ran a mile once she realised what being a royal actually entailed. I think “proud” might be the wrong word tbh. Appreciative might be better. Whatever word you’d use to describe David Attenborough still working to help the environment in his 90s. Its the same for the Queen. You only get one life on this planet and she’s spent the entire of it in public service as the nation’s figurehead when she could quite reasonably have retired from the role 30 years ago and spent her time doing things she enjoyed (and, indeed, was wealthy enough that she never actually had to do it in the first place). I think even a republican could probably admire her lifetime of dedication to the role even if they disagree with the institution she represents.

Targett isn’t gone. He was too mentally weak to secure a permanent transfer out of here.

This wouldn’t be a massive blow if true. Most of the tanks sent to Ukraine were older Polish stock and less advanced than the ones than Ukraine had at the start of the war.

I don’t think I ever said I thought people wanted them executed? I’m just saying it’s not only loons that read the Daily Mail who think the royals might bring in more than £85m of economic benefit each year. I think the interest in the royals would be reduced to almost zero if they were no longer the head of state. They currently have (effectively) a purely ceremonial role already, and primarily what people are interested in these days is all the pageantry that goes with the role. Nobody would pay to meet Charles if they abolished the monarchy when the Queen dies. Also, I very much doubt abolishing the monarchy would magically transport us to a society where your abilities are more important that your birthright. A lot of your opportunities in life are defined by your location of birth and the earnings / general attentiveness of your parents. I get the royals are an extreme example but the problem won’t go away. @TheAuthority @Davkaus so are you guys suggesting the French monarchy (probably the most famous ex-monarchy given how it ended) brings in more money and gives more soft power than ours? I’d definitely have to see some evidence before I believe that. Personally I’m pretty neutral on the royals. I don’t see many problems that abolishing the monarchy would meaningfully improve, and as I also I don’t think they’re much of a drain on the public purse I’m content to let them chug along as is for now. Thing is, most anti-monarchy sentiment I’ve encountered seems primarily to come from wanting to take away things enjoyed by groups you don’t like. I’ve got two issues with that. The first is that that’s a bad idea in general - the Welsh language is pointless, expensive and all the Welsh people I currently know are cocks, but that’s hardly a reason to abolish part of our (their) heritage. The second thing is that most people aren’t actually very into the monarchy. It’s an excuse to have a loosely crown-themed party / day out once in a while. If you asked them to do anything strenuous for the Queen they’d tell you to jog on. It’s just the same as the World Cup campaign or the Olympics. I don’t really see any value to taking that away on a point of principle. Sure, you wouldn’t want to create a royal family if you didn’t already have one but that’s not the discussion we’re having.

Is it impossible to believe the monarchy brings in more than £85m a year in tourism etc? And grants the UK a form of soft power that we would otherwise have to pay for - e.g BBC World Service and Foreign Office staffing are both things that cost money but are justified on that grounds, as is hosting stuff like the Olympics or bidding for the World Cup etc. The cost to the taxpayer is actually higher because the £85m a year doesn’t include security costs etc, btw. But I don’t think it’s impossible that the benefits outweigh it. I mean, a quick example - The Crown is the most expensive tv show ever made and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to a few more holidays over here being booked.

Indeed, that’s why I found the reports the Chechens took casualties interesting too. Either they were caught out by the counterattacks when making TikTok videos, or the Russians are scraping the barrel enough that even the Chechens need to get stuck in (given they’re fairly well equipped). Or maybe the reports about them taking losses are just wrong. I didn’t think the DNR / LNR forces were in Kherson though? There was a tweet yesterday (which annoying I can’t find again) reporting the DNR troops were refusing to fight for Luhansk so I think there’s plenty around Severodonetsk. It would make sense to me for them to be relatively close to home too given they’re low-quality conscripts and probably not worth the petrol to drive halfway across the country. I was under the impression the Kherson troops were just low-quality reserves, but were still actual Russian soldiers?

Yeah, quite possibly. Just speculation on my part really. Haven’t seen the photos from DW because the sources I follow are pretty thorough about scrubbing anything involving dead bodies out, but it’s always good to hear the Russians are taking losses!

It seems like the Ukrainians have taken some quite serious losses in the past few days - the 100 KIA and 500 wounded per day quoted by Zelensky is going to deplete your forces pretty fast - but it does seem like evidence is coming in to support the rumours of the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive into the city you mentioned earlier. And if that is true then the Russians must be close to breaking point (locally, at least) and so their losses must be much higher than that. A few recent rumours on Twitter say that the Chechens in particular took heavy losses but I guess it'll take time for the situation to become clear. It's interesting that the daily estimates from the Ukrainian side about Russian casualties are only ~100 KIA a day right now, though. That to me either implies a lag in reporting or that the losses being taken are being borne almost entirely by the DNR / LNR forces, and maybe Wagner / Chechens if Ukraine classifies them differently and so they aren't included in the figures. That said, I'm also not sure it's the artillery doing the killing at the moment - I wouldn't be surprised if the Ukrainians are choosing to fight in the city specifically because there's plenty of cover to protect them from the massed Russian artillery, negating the main advantage the Russians have and letting the Ukrainians inflict casualties the old fashioned way.

I think this appointment and how quickly it was made reflects well on everyone involved, including Beale (who must have given us enough warning about his plans to set the wheels in motion).

The problem is that he’s not willing to commit his future to us for whatever reason, not a problem we usually have with youth prospects. Which suggests he’s either demanding crazy wages or guaranteed playing time that doesn’t seem to be justified by his performances so far.

The sad thing is I reckon most Russians think all those deaths are justified.

Mate, finding reliable PL-quality strikers who will slot straight into your team for less than £10m is easy. That’s why all our current strikers have been so cheap and absolutely none of them have any flaws in their game at all. For context £10m is 1/3 of a Wes. Edit: it’s actually also less than half of a 30-year old Chris Wood, who I consider the very definition of a competent but unremarkable PL striker.

The alternate explanation is he had a run of bad form and then a new manager came in who wanted a different kind of fullback to what Smith originally bought Targett to do. And then Gerrard spend big money buying an older player that played the same position but more in the style Gerrard wanted, and Targett was sensible enough to know Gerrard didn't fancy him and even if he was in the form of his life he was still never going to fit into Gerrard's system. All the accusations of mental weakness seem to be a bit self-serving. If he stays then he's mentally weak because he's content being sat on his arse every week when it's clear he's not going to get minutes from Gerrard. If he goes, he's too mentally weak to stay and pointlessly fight for his place. You can interpret pretty much everything as a sign of mental weakness if you try hard enough. Ultimately Targett is an old-fashioned defensive fullback. I like the guy, but he wasn't playing well at the start of the season and he was toast as soon as Gerrard walked in and wanted more from him than he'd ever be able to give. He made the right decision going elsewhere - although perhaps now they are safe Newcastle may want more attacking prowess from their fullbacks than Matt can offer too. If that's the case I imagine he'll be an excellent servant for any newly-promoted team or established team that prioritise having a solid defence over dynamism in attack.

I feel like the writing is on the wall when the club spend £25m buying a 28 year old to play in your position. When that happens it doesn't take a genuis to realise that the manager thinks you need to be upgraded and you might want to find work elsewhere.

Yeah but Dean Smith said Grealish was definitely going to be back for the game in his press conference, so our opponents were forced to plan as if he was there. 5d chess.

You've missed the point of my post(s) again. I'm going to try and explain this without any implied criticism of you and your views, so hopefully we don't have to spend the rest of eternity arguing with each other. Look, I very much dislike misinformation. Differing interpretations of facts are what debate / discussion is about, but it's essential to have a common set of facts to work from. I'll call out misinformation I see posted in this thread even if I 100% agree with the point it is being used to support. This argument came about because you posted that the Russians weren't making any gains at all, and that the Ukrainians weren't taking heavy losses. That's simply not true and even you don't seem to believe that any more, so as far as I'm concerned the argument is over. I didn't point it out so I could call you stupid and gloat about being right, it's just that it's impossible to have a serious discussion about the strategic implications of Russia's tactical gains if you are denying they even happened. It's not personal and it doesn't have to be a big thing. I'll happily challenge someone like @bickster on his sources when they don't look right to me, and we just compare notes and move on. There's been several occasions in various threads when I've been wrong and learned something new as a result. Unfortunately, you usually interpret me challenging your supporting arguments / sources as an attack on your overall position, and instead of accepting the correction you write big posts supporting your overall position even though I already agree with it. At the highest level our views are not particularly different. There's no point posting the ISW report because I've already read it and it supports the views I already hold, so it doesn't prove me wrong. I think this is the main area of confusion between us; I point out incorrect information and you launch into a big defence about how Ukraine is likely going to win the war. Yes, you're right. Ukraine is likely going to win the war. But you shouldn't be posting misinformation to support that view and implying I'm a Russian sympathiser when I point it out. Also, while you're clearly very enthusiastic about the Ukrainian cause most people are going to apply a bit of caution to any scenario with as many uncertainties as a war. Pre-war you were certain that Ukraine would win a war against Russia, which given the stance of the ISW / Pentagon etc was a pretty major outlier. When the early Ukrainian tactical victories started coming in you very quickly got aboard the "Ukraine's going to win the war!" train, even though almost every respected analyst was urging caution because there hadn't been enough evidence to extrapolate the course of an entire war from a few days of fighting. You were also enthusiastically posting every update into this thread, and obviously some of it ended up being misinformation, and I was calling that out where it had been disproved. Maybe you took that to be more personal than it was intended to be. As my views tracked pretty closely with a number of sources you now consider reliable I found it pretty frustrating that you'd continually imply I was some kind of Russian agent for expressing the sort of caution they were. Anyway, while I will continue to correct any misinformation I see posted in this thread I'm happy to wipe the slate clean with you if you want. I get the feeling we both think the other is trying to score points off them. Hopefully this post helps explain what I'm actually trying to achieve.