RayC

Factually incorrect. Like it or not - I don't - the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch. As MrFill states the Monarch has to give Royal Ascent for bills to become law. There was a case in Belgium 30-odd years ago where the King refused to sign a bill concerning abortion. It causes a constitutional crisis. In the end, the King resigned for a day, the bill became law and the King then resumed his duties. This incident - something similar could happen in the UK - begs a number of questions including, why should an unelected individual be able to defy the wishes of the elected parliamentarians? Given that a work-around was found, why do we need to invest constitutional powers outside of government/ parliament?

The PM is the leader of the government. The Head of State is the Monarch. Although he is unelected, the King holds constitutional powers and could exercise them through the use of the Royal Prerogative.

She has gone of record stating that she does not want rid of the monarchy so - unless she's lying - by definition, that makes her a monarchist. Like any other rational person, she doesn't appear to believe in the 'divine right of kings'. If that adds up to despisal, then there's plenty of us who fit the bill

Why not? As soalbundy has pointed out continuously throughout this thread. These doctors' personal opinions re the climate have nothing to do with their professional lives and expertise. Not for the first time, you make false assumptions about me. For the record, I don't have much time for 'Just Stop Oil'. However, having said that, if scientists with a deeper understanding of this subject matter than me or you suggest that climate change is a major problem, I'm inclined to listen and learn. Unlike you, I don't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit a very narrow political narrative.

The author of the article, Tessa Dunlop, is an historian and describes herself as a "soft" monarchist. So much for republican bias.

You could vote against him becoming HoS. If enough Brits shared your opinion, Blair would not be elected.

The Spiked 'Free speech unless we don't agree with it' school of thought raises it's head again.

Only 579 Russians in Bangkok? When did the rest of them leave?

I agree that UK elections could be more democratic, however the election for a Head of State couldn't follow the 'first past the post' system. At least other three possibilities for deciding a winner spring to mind: 1) 'Winner takes all' i.e. person with the highest number of votes wins 2) Runoff if no candidate gets >50% e.g. similar to French Presidential elections 3) Single Transferable Vote. Whatever system is chosen, by definition it will be more democratic than the system based on inheritance which we currently have.

In any other era Sunak would correctly be regarded as being on the right-wing of the Tory party. That he is portrayed as a liberal Conservative shows how far to the right the Tory party has lurched. Given the absolute mess that Labour will inherit if elected - and the time it will take to try to turn things around - it wouldn't be a great surprise if things got worse before they get better. Unfortunately, the whole of Europe seems to be moving right at the moment. Hopefully, in five years time - if not before - it will become clear how divisive and destructive these right-wing policies are, and we can revert to a more beneficial state of affairs i.e. policies based around a mixed economy and socially liberal values.

Such as? She liquidated her interest in one company which was a beneficiary of government policy. Another child-care organisation where she had an interest received a government grant of £350k, which isn't even loose change to her. She was effectively forced to give up her non-dom status. If anything, Rishi being PM has cost the Sunak household money. Reform will be overjoyed if that's the case. If Sunak thinks that a FTA with India will make a blind bit of difference to the outcome of the election, then he has even less political nous than I thought. Any FTA with India is bound to include concessions re Indian mitigation to the UK. That won't sit well either with the flat earthers in the Tory party or the wider Tory supporting electorate. True of some, not of others.

Sunak and his wife are worth a combined £500+m. Whatever his reasons for wanting to be PM, I very much doubt that boosting their wealth was the main motivating factor.

Why rubbish? Assuming that the UK constitution doesn't change and that he doesn't predecease his father, William will be the next unelected UK Head of State so issues surrounding him are of public interest. I hope that his wife recovers from her health problems but if there are aspects of his life - such as his obvious concern for her well-being - which might restrict his ability to perform his future role effectively then the public should be aware of the fact. The public also has every right to know how he is likely to approach his future role. If William is unable and/or unwilling to meet those conditions then he should step aside. We could then install a Head of State who is democratically elected by the UK electorate.

Sunak may well be a very clever person with an impressive work ethic, however, imo what his tenure as PM has shown is that he lacks three crucial attributes necessary to succeed in the role: 1) charisma - he has none 2) public performance - he is uneasy being in the spotlight and 3) political nous - very lacking in this regard.

Not sure that this adds anything to Sheryl's excellent advice? Anyway for what it's worth. My wife attended the walk-in evening clinic at the Institute last Tuesday re a lesion. She waited for about an hour to be examined and was given an appointment for removal of the lesion (last) Thursday (2 days later; no biopsy necessary in her case). Good luck.

If the 2022 World Cup is anything to go by, there will be plenty of St. George's (and St. Andrew's) flags flying this summer during the Euros

Depends where you flew it from. You need permission to erect a flagpole in the UK but, other than that, you can display the Union Jack or flag of St. George to your heart's content.

Given that the first recorded gender reassignment surgery didn't take place until 1931, it's hardly surprising that there aren't many books dating from the 1930s and earlier about transgender issues.

Spot on. Why this story is considered newsworthy is beyond me.

If only all countries would follow the EU in this matter https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/index_en.htm

I would say that inferring that there are six million East Europeans living in the UK is a vast exaggeration. Estimates put the number of nationals from all EU states at around 3.5 million so, to hazard a guess, the number of East Europeans currently in the UK is probably no more than 2 million or so. If there is a shortage of social housing stock and if net migration is positive, then it will almost certainly excabarate any problems. However, the overwhelming majority of the Eastern Europeans who came to the UK did so to fill job vacancies and satisfy demand for services that couldn't be filled locally. If they had not done so, then the UK's economic growth would have shrunk. Eastern Europeans - or any other immigrants for that matter - don't decide UK government economic and/or housing policy. Consequently, they can't be blamed for the failure of successive UK governments to increase the amount of affordable housing available in the UK.

No it doesn't. The 'White Other' category includes Australasians, North Americans, South Americans, white Africans, white Asians as well as (other) white Europeans. Moreover, these figures are about occupancy. Many occupants will have been in their homes for years. I'd suggest that the number of social housing homes in the UK occupied by East Europeans is small. In any event, the main reason for the shortage in social housing is that the stock of such housing is being reduced as such homes are sold or demolished and the number of social housing being built is insufficient to compensate for the loss.

You're welcome but I'm afraid that you are still incorrect. 11% of UK social housing was rented by 'White Other' (not British or Irish) which is hardly "quite a lot". (Note: I think that it's reasonable to assume that almost all East European migrants are white).

The connection is tenuous to say the least. The availability of social housing has been on a downward trend for decades. To suggest that, pre-Brexit, "all available council housing was going to Eastern European immigrants" is ridiculous and factually incorrect; over 90% of those in social housing are British or Irish. If people voted for Brexit in the belief that the availability of social housing would increase, they were misguided and/or sold yet another pup.

Ukraine may be corrupt but it is fighting for its' survival. The expectation should be that the money will be used to further that cause.