Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Time for budget bingo – will Sunak say these words/phrases? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 26 in General
imageTime for budget bingo – will Sunak say these words/phrases? – politicalbetting.com

Welcome to the first Smarkets “Budget Bingo” betting created by Shadsy who used to be at Ladbrokes. This was one of his specialty bets which he has now created for his new employer which, of course, is a betting exchange.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,353
    edited October 26
    First - Unlike COP26
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,786
    edited October 26
    Mr Speaker might cancel the budget and void this market.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-speaker-cancel-the-budget-
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    Third like Charles
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    Am wondering what the odds are on the Smiths at number 1 before the year is out?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    Mr Speaker might cancel the budget and void this market.

    Squeakers often talk a good game of being really, really cross with the government, but if it comes to a showdown it's not hard to see where the clever money is.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    Just found out my niece met Jezza on a train. And had a very pleasant chat.
    He had a seat.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr Speaker might cancel the budget and void this market.

    Squeakers often talk a good game of being really, really cross with the government, but if it comes to a showdown it's not hard to see where the clever money is.
    Well, no, as Sunak has already leaked where it's going.
  • dixiedean said:

    Just found out my niece met Jezza on a train. And had a very pleasant chat.
    He had a seat.

    That never stopped him from sitting on the floor before
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Raducanu wins the second set. Now 1-1. 1.36 on Betfair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    dixiedean said:

    Just found out my niece met Jezza on a train. And had a very pleasant chat.
    He had a seat.

    He did the time he made that video of him sitting on the floor as well.
  • I wonder if Brenda is behind this?

    Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have long cited social media toxicity as a factor in their decision to step back from royal life. And now, an analysis of more than 114,000 tweets about the couple has revealed a coordinated campaign of targeted harassment of Meghan on Twitter — and the 83 accounts responsible for approximately 70% of the negative and often hateful content.

    On Tuesday, Twitter analytics service Bot Sentinel released a report examining Twitter activity related to the Sussexes and found that the majority of the hate and misinformation about the couple originated from a small group of accounts whose primary, if not sole, purpose appears to be to tweet negatively about them. Bot Sentinel’s analysis also revealed a level of sophistication and coordination between the accounts, who use their combined 187,631 followers to fuel a campaign of negativity against Harry and Meghan.


    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/bot-sentinel-meghan-markle-prince-harry-twitter?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,353

    Mr Speaker might cancel the budget and void this market.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-speaker-cancel-the-budget-

    He should do it (if he has the authority)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    edited October 26

    dixiedean said:

    Just found out my niece met Jezza on a train. And had a very pleasant chat.
    He had a seat.

    That never stopped him from sitting on the floor before
    Although that did make him the only man to be screwed by a Virgin during the making of a video.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    He'll go for James II.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749
    edited October 26
    dixiedean said:

    Am wondering what the odds are on the Smiths at number 1 before the year is out?

    It's not their most catchy track, although the line, "Life is very long when you're lonely," has a new poignancy since Philip's death.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    Thought he'd already decided on George?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    He'll go for James II.
    Er....how? Given there has already been a James II?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Emma Raducanu should watch this 10-minute conversation between snooker champions Steve Davis and Ronnie O'Sullivan where they talk about the mental pressure in defending leads. Davis makes the point it can be worse mentally to defend a big lead when your opponent then has a couple of wins, than a narrow lead.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTYa3GY55g
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    Thought he'd already decided on George?
    And there is precedent. His grandfather was always Prince Albert, Duke of York, until the moment he became King when he declared he would be George VI.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    Emma Raducanu should watch this 10-minute conversation between snooker champions Steve Davis and Ronnie O'Sullivan where they talk about the mental pressure in defending leads. Davis makes the point it can be worse mentally to defend a big lead when your opponent then has a couple of wins, than a narrow lead.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTYa3GY55g

    Would be more helpful if she watched the ball, tbh.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    Thought he'd already decided on George?
    And there is precedent. His grandfather was always Prince Albert, Duke of York, until the moment he became King when he declared he would be George VI.
    And Edward VIII was previously called David.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    At which point she would remind you that her married name is Mountbatten.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    Charles would be stupid to change his name. The public have known him as Charles for 70 odd years and will continue to call him that.

    All it will mean is that people will say “King Charles or whatever hes called”
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    Thought he'd already decided on George?
    And there is precedent. His grandfather was always Prince Albert, Duke of York, until the moment he became King when he declared he would be George VI.
    And Edward VIII was previously called David.
    His first name was Edward though.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    edited October 26
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    Thought he'd already decided on George?
    And there is precedent. His grandfather was always Prince Albert, Duke of York, until the moment he became King when he declared he would be George VI.
    Of course there's precedent like there was precedent for not half masting flags when the people's princess became an ex princess. Doesn't affect the wankerdom point.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Wasn't the other reason against Charles that it would upset various people in Scotland, no matter which number convention was used?
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    If I ever met her I’d ask her if she could give me a few grand. She’s got plenty.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Wasn't the other reason against Charles that it would upset various people in Scotland, no matter which number convention was used?
    Why? There have only been two King Charles in Scotland AFAIK.
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    He'll go for James II.
    Er....how? Given there has already been a James II?
    For the LOLZ.

    James VI and I has always amused me in the way that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th US President.
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    He should go for a name that reflect the United Kingdom.

    Therefore he should call himself King Mohammed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Taz said:

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    If I ever met her I’d ask her if she could give me a few grand. She’s got plenty.
    She can't afford the bus fare to Glasgow.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    edited October 26

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    He'll go for James II.
    Er....how? Given there has already been a James II?
    For the LOLZ.

    James VI and I has always amused me in the way that Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th US President.
    But he would have to be James III.* James the VII and II reigned from 1685 until 1688.

    *In fact according to numbering conventions he would have to be James VIII, which really would be confusing.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    Queen Charlotte would annoy a vast variety of folk.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455

    Taz said:

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    If I ever met her I’d ask her if she could give me a few grand. She’s got plenty.
    She can't afford the bus fare to Glasgow.
    Hmm, I’d better avoid her then in case she taps me up for a few quid then

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    King Alan the first.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Should have thought of that when they christened him.

    Arthur would secure the BNP vote.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Wasn't the other reason against Charles that it would upset various people in Scotland, no matter which number convention was used?
    A bloke using his real name would “upset people in Scotland”. WTF? Who are these mystery snowflakes who even give a fraction of a shit?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    He should go for a name that reflect the United Kingdom.

    Therefore he should call himself King Mohammed.
    My limited experience of people called Mohammed is they are not actually called Mohammed because it does not distinguish them from everyone else with the same name. So Charles could be King Mohammed known as King George. Which brings us back to square one.
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    He should go for a name that reflect the United Kingdom.

    Therefore he should call himself King Mohammed.
    My limited experience of people called Mohammed is they are not actually called Mohammed because it does not distinguish them from everyone else with the same name. So Charles could be King Mohammed known as King George. Which brings us back to square one.
    I'd say of all the Mohammeds that I know about 95% are known by their middle name, which was the intention of their parents.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    ydoethur said:

    Emma Raducanu should watch this 10-minute conversation between snooker champions Steve Davis and Ronnie O'Sullivan where they talk about the mental pressure in defending leads. Davis makes the point it can be worse mentally to defend a big lead when your opponent then has a couple of wins, than a narrow lead.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTYa3GY55g

    Would be more helpful if she watched the ball, tbh.
    Emma's taken your advice and stormed to a 3-0 lead and 1.05 on Betfair.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749
    Thread on the EU rule of law crisis:

    But senior EU sources are clear that if Merkel does [wins the argument on appeasing Poland], @MinPres in conjunction with other Northern European member states, will vote AGAINST the Commission’s recommendation to disburse €bn to Warsaw

    While the legal basis for the €bn disbursement decision is qualified majority voting—meaning the Hague alone would not have a veto—the political implications of such a move would be unprecedented

    Senior Commission officials (rightly) worry it would effectively kill the prospect of a permanent Recovery Fund or “fiscal capacity” for Eurozone over medium term; it would also negatively impact Northern Europe’s willingness to substantively dilute EU’s fiscal rulebook.


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1452966655970140161
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    Emma Raducanu should watch this 10-minute conversation between snooker champions Steve Davis and Ronnie O'Sullivan where they talk about the mental pressure in defending leads. Davis makes the point it can be worse mentally to defend a big lead when your opponent then has a couple of wins, than a narrow lead.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTYa3GY55g

    Would be more helpful if she watched the ball, tbh.
    Emma's taken your advice and stormed to a 3-0 lead and 1.05 on Betfair.
    She's still going to lose.

    The same way Hamilton won last Sunday when I said he had it in the bag, I hope.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,348
    Evening all :)

    Tonight's incoherent ramblings from the Stodgeverse

    I noted one or two on here arguing there would be a backlash against "environmental" proposals or policies because such policies would hit the poor hardest and cost them the most - this primarily a reference to proposals to tax or challenge car usage.

    To be honest, a lot of change affects the poorest the hardest and environmental/climate change is and will be no exception. The wealthy can move to higher ground, wealthier countries can protect their cities with stronger flood defences and wealthier countries can invest in more efficient means of transport to offset pollution.

    Poorer countries and poorer individuals can't - climate change and its impact is a fact in many parts of the world for all its effects on us seem limited. The agenda of those who are unwilling or unable to recognise what is happening is clear - emphasise the cost impact on the poorest to create populist opposition while at the same time emphasising the need to preserve "our way of life".

    There are of course challenges to the wealthier (not the wealthiest). These include foreign air travel and presumably cruises as cited by Joanna Lumley along with the call to eat less meat. As for the latter, I'm no supporter of taking meat out of the diet - I'd like the quality of the meat we eat to be as high as possible but of course, as we know, the poor can only afford what they can afford and the mass production of poor quality meat (often pumped full of water) is all they have.

    I suppose if we're looking at air travel we shouldn't just be looking a my flight to Las Vegas as there's other forms of air travel - military and cargo for example. When I was a child in the Bronze Age (the third best age), we didn't have the likes of bananas and strawberries in the winter - we do now because they are flown in from Israel, the Canaries or wherever. Is the environmental cost of flying in these fruit out of season justifiable? It would obviously be bad news for the producers and their workers (back to the "poor" again) but where is the line?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    John?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Do you study the history of history teaching? When did school history move away from "regnal dates and battles"?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    Petrol 145 even at Tesco ffs
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    John?
    Correct. Toom Tabard and Softsword.

    Two of the worst ever monarchs of their respective countries, and in both cases their reign ended in governmental collapse and civil war. No Johns in either country since.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Progress! Following PB's adverse commentary on the NHS website, I see that it does now at least explain that to be eligible for a vaccine booster, you need to wait six months.

    Onward to the next PB campaign......
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749
    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Gruffydd?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Do you study the history of history teaching? When did school history move away from "regnal dates and battles"?
    1970s with the Schools History Project. But in the mid-1990s when I had a really terrible teacher with the most boring voice you ever heard in your life, I would relieve the tedium of her endless droning on by studying the regnal timelines on her walls.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,707
    FPT Wow!! I really have been out of the UK for too long. I had to google mandem, bare, peng AND ends
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,348
    As others have said, time for much nerve holding on the Coronavirus front. The death numbers look awful tonight but as has been said by all the "experts" on here, a lagging indicator and just a hint (and enough for some to hurl vitriol at SAGE and other scientists) we may be at the crest of the wave and heading down.

    Let's hope so.

    I hear disquieting news on booster vaccination availability in some parts of the country - it seems half the over-50s have already had their booster vaccination. Fair enough - I'm in the other half and my 6 months isn't up until the end of next month so I will also hold my nerve.

    I'm not too worried - I was much more concerned in January when cases were high and vaccination only just beginning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Gruffydd?
    As there has never yet been a King Gruffydd, or at least, his fame has never come my way, I assumed you must refer to your baptismal name.

    With apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Gruffydd?
    As there has never yet been a King Gruffydd, or at least, his fame has never come my way, I assumed you must refer to your baptismal name.

    With apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson.
    There has, and it was an excellent answer given the parameters of the question.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Emma Raducanu should watch this 10-minute conversation between snooker champions Steve Davis and Ronnie O'Sullivan where they talk about the mental pressure in defending leads. Davis makes the point it can be worse mentally to defend a big lead when your opponent then has a couple of wins, than a narrow lead.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTYa3GY55g

    Would be more helpful if she watched the ball, tbh.
    Emma's taken your advice and stormed to a 3-0 lead and 1.05 on Betfair.
    She's still going to lose.

    The same way Hamilton won last Sunday when I said he had it in the bag, I hope.
    5-0 and she has been backed off the boards.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Gruffydd?
    As there has never yet been a King Gruffydd, or at least, his fame has never come my way, I assumed you must refer to your baptismal name.

    With apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson.
    There has, and it was an excellent answer given the parameters of the question.
    When was there a Gruffydd who was King of England or Scotland?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    If I ever met her I’d ask her if she could give me a few grand. She’s got plenty.
    She can't afford the bus fare to Glasgow.
    Hmm, I’d better avoid her then in case she taps me up for a few quid then

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    King Alan the first.
    Yes, what do you want?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    King Mohammed Gary Alan Mountbatten I.

    Nailed it.


    (DYOR etc etc)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    edited October 26
    stodge said:

    As others have said, time for much nerve holding on the Coronavirus front. The death numbers look awful tonight but as has been said by all the "experts" on here, a lagging indicator and just a hint (and enough for some to hurl vitriol at SAGE and other scientists) we may be at the crest of the wave and heading down.

    Let's hope so.

    I hear disquieting news on booster vaccination availability in some parts of the country - it seems half the over-50s have already had their booster vaccination. Fair enough - I'm in the other half and my 6 months isn't up until the end of next month so I will also hold my nerve.

    I'm not too worried - I was much more concerned in January when cases were high and vaccination only just beginning.

    The deaths are actually -

    image

    The headline number is the reporting day number, which gives us Murder Tuesday, when they report deaths for about 3 days in one go.

    EDIT: Please don't confuse iSage and Sage.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,142
    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Gruffydd?
    As there has never yet been a King Gruffydd, or at least, his fame has never come my way, I assumed you must refer to your baptismal name.

    With apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson.
    There has, and it was an excellent answer given the parameters of the question.
    When was there a Gruffydd who was King of England or Scotland?
    There was a King Gruffydd who was a king over parts of what is now England, in C11th.
    But the question didn't state king OF England or Scotland.
  • On the budget there is a real cat and mouse game going on. The government hold the Commons in absolute contempt, used to blame Bercow for raising opposition and surely will soon start casting aspersions on Hoyle.

    Mister Speaker - as the previous title-holder demonstrated - has a wide range of measures available. Whilst Holye - unlike Bercow - isn't likely to make up rules as they go along and freestyle, there are swathes of rules he can deploy to smash down the government.

    It will be interesting to watch when this undoubtedly escalates into open warfare. The Leader of the House used to be the affable chap always quoting Erskine May to defend the rights of backbenchers against the government. How will he object to that very principle being slapped in his face...?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,348
    Time to be a little more controversial.

    The reaction among some to the news tonight the Queen will not be attending the COP26 summit has been, well I can only describe it as fear. It was the same last week when the Queen missed a trip to Northern Ireland.

    There is genuine anxiety out there as to what will happen when she dies and how and indeed if the world will change. Yes, she's the only monarch most of us have ever known and has been arguably the single unifying force through the vast changes which Britain has seen since 1952.

    With her departure, the cord will be cut (so to speak) and we will be cast adrift into the future. It's quite clear there are elements who don't think much of Charles (or George VII as he will be titled) and worry about the future of the monarchy and indeed the country.

    I'm more sanguine - the monarchy and the country will adapt and evolve as it always has. For some, it may be an uncomfortable evolution to a state less than desired but sometimes that happens.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    In fact, here's a really clever brain teaser.

    What's the only male* regnal name used from before 1603 where the numbering would be identical for England and Scotland?

    *There is a female one as well but that's easier to guess.

    Gruffydd?
    As there has never yet been a King Gruffydd, or at least, his fame has never come my way, I assumed you must refer to your baptismal name.

    With apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson.
    There has, and it was an excellent answer given the parameters of the question.
    When was there a Gruffydd who was King of England or Scotland?
    There was a King Gruffydd who was a king over parts of what is now England, in C11th.
    But the question didn't state king OF England or Scotland.
    Clearly you misread it. It clearly did say 'regnal names for England and Scotland.'
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,585

    To be fair, the Queen might be in the best of health and just wanted an excuse to not go to Glasgow.

    Last time I went to Glasgow the food was so bad I'd rather eat the shavings from a ped egg.

    Can't be any worse than Sheffield or Manchester :lol:
  • With regards to the Duke of Rothesay, why would he want to ditch Charles III in favour of becoming James IX?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749
    Marine le Pen is getting a warm reception from Orban in Hungary.

    image
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    The little I did, I found useful - and fairly interesting!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    He should go for a name that reflect the United Kingdom.

    Therefore he should call himself King Mohammed.
    My limited experience of people called Mohammed is they are not actually called Mohammed because it does not distinguish them from everyone else with the same name. So Charles could be King Mohammed known as King George. Which brings us back to square one.
    I'd say of all the Mohammeds that I know about 95% are known by their middle name, which was the intention of their parents.
    Perhaps King Abu Philip?

    He should stick to Charles. King Oliver 1st would be the way to annoy the Roundheads...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,742
    edited October 26
    stodge said:

    Time to be a little more controversial.

    The reaction among some to the news tonight the Queen will not be attending the COP26 summit has been, well I can only describe it as fear. It was the same last week when the Queen missed a trip to Northern Ireland.

    There is genuine anxiety out there as to what will happen when she dies and how and indeed if the world will change. Yes, she's the only monarch most of us have ever known and has been arguably the single unifying force through the vast changes which Britain has seen since 1952.

    With her departure, the cord will be cut (so to speak) and we will be cast adrift into the future. It's quite clear there are elements who don't think much of Charles (or George VII as he will be titled) and worry about the future of the monarchy and indeed the country.

    I'm more sanguine - the monarchy and the country will adapt and evolve as it always has. For some, it may be an uncomfortable evolution to a state less than desired but sometimes that happens.

    I think Charles will be fine.

    If we wants to catch the zeitgeist he can follow Sellars & Yeatman and dub himself Broody Mary.

    I quite like that HRH appears on the list of top 20 longest serving monarchs 5 times.
  • Petrol 145 even at Tesco ffs

    141.7 at Asda in the Broch. I expect to find some a penny or so cheaper tomorrow in Aberdeen
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    The little I did, I found useful - and fairly interesting!
    Really? As far as I could see there were always three points, but no point.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    stodge said:

    Time to be a little more controversial.

    The reaction among some to the news tonight the Queen will not be attending the COP26 summit has been, well I can only describe it as fear. It was the same last week when the Queen missed a trip to Northern Ireland.

    There is genuine anxiety out there as to what will happen when she dies and how and indeed if the world will change. Yes, she's the only monarch most of us have ever known and has been arguably the single unifying force through the vast changes which Britain has seen since 1952.

    With her departure, the cord will be cut (so to speak) and we will be cast adrift into the future. It's quite clear there are elements who don't think much of Charles (or George VII as he will be titled) and worry about the future of the monarchy and indeed the country.

    I'm more sanguine - the monarchy and the country will adapt and evolve as it always has. For some, it may be an uncomfortable evolution to a state less than desired but sometimes that happens.

    A bizarre mindset. The system is a genetic lottery. We know that. Either become a republican or suck it up.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    He should go for a name that reflect the United Kingdom.

    Therefore he should call himself King Mohammed.
    My limited experience of people called Mohammed is they are not actually called Mohammed because it does not distinguish them from everyone else with the same name. So Charles could be King Mohammed known as King George. Which brings us back to square one.
    I'd say of all the Mohammeds that I know about 95% are known by their middle name, which was the intention of their parents.
    Perhaps King Abu Philip?

    He should stick to Charles. King Oliver 1st would be the way to annoy the Roundheads...
    He should be original. He should go for the name of the first King of Scots.

    Just to show he Ken.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,348


    The headline number is the reporting day number, which gives us Murder Tuesday, when they report deaths for about 3 days in one go.

    The fact is the numbers look bad for all the scientific and data analytical exposition behind them.

    People see "263 dead" and will assume that's the number who died yesterday.

    Don't confuse perception and truth.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406
    TimT said:

    FPT Wow!! I really have been out of the UK for too long. I had to google mandem, bare, peng AND ends

    I have children in SE London schools so can give you a primer on all of this if required.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,432
    MattW said:

    stodge said:

    Time to be a little more controversial.

    The reaction among some to the news tonight the Queen will not be attending the COP26 summit has been, well I can only describe it as fear. It was the same last week when the Queen missed a trip to Northern Ireland.

    There is genuine anxiety out there as to what will happen when she dies and how and indeed if the world will change. Yes, she's the only monarch most of us have ever known and has been arguably the single unifying force through the vast changes which Britain has seen since 1952.

    With her departure, the cord will be cut (so to speak) and we will be cast adrift into the future. It's quite clear there are elements who don't think much of Charles (or George VII as he will be titled) and worry about the future of the monarchy and indeed the country.

    I'm more sanguine - the monarchy and the country will adapt and evolve as it always has. For some, it may be an uncomfortable evolution to a state less than desired but sometimes that happens.

    I think Charles will be fine.

    If we wants to catch the zeitgeist he can follow Sellars & Yeatman and dub himself Broody Mary.
    If he calls himself George VII he will be a laughing stock. No-one will take him seriously.
    I know that what they did before Elizabeth, but as Stodge says, Elizabeth is all most of us have ever known.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Emma Raducanu should watch this 10-minute conversation between snooker champions Steve Davis and Ronnie O'Sullivan where they talk about the mental pressure in defending leads. Davis makes the point it can be worse mentally to defend a big lead when your opponent then has a couple of wins, than a narrow lead.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTYa3GY55g

    Would be more helpful if she watched the ball, tbh.
    Emma's taken your advice and stormed to a 3-0 lead and 1.05 on Betfair.
    She's still going to lose.

    The same way Hamilton won last Sunday when I said he had it in the bag, I hope.
    5-0 and she has been backed off the boards.
    5-1 and there is 1.01 available again.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    If I ever met her I’d ask her if she could give me a few grand. She’s got plenty.
    She can't afford the bus fare to Glasgow.
    Hmm, I’d better avoid her then in case she taps me up for a few quid then

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    King Alan the first.
    Yes, what do you want?
    A peerage and some countryside in the Durham Dales with a nice house chucked in, please, your majesty.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    With regards to the Duke of Rothesay, why would he want to ditch Charles III in favour of becoming James IX?

    That does of course raise another point. If he were to choose Charles, James or Henry, a decision would need to be made on whether the son and grandsons of James the VII and II had regnal numbers or not.

    (Following your logic, btw, he would be Charles IV not Charles III.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    He should go for a name that reflect the United Kingdom.

    Therefore he should call himself King Mohammed.
    My limited experience of people called Mohammed is they are not actually called Mohammed because it does not distinguish them from everyone else with the same name. So Charles could be King Mohammed known as King George. Which brings us back to square one.
    I'd say of all the Mohammeds that I know about 95% are known by their middle name, which was the intention of their parents.
    Perhaps King Abu Philip?

    He should stick to Charles. King Oliver 1st would be the way to annoy the Roundheads...
    Thinking about it that should be King Abu William Bin Philip.

    It's been a long day...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,585

    Petrol 145 even at Tesco ffs

    141.7 at Asda in the Broch. I expect to find some a penny or so cheaper tomorrow in Aberdeen
    Diesel 148.9 at BP Eastern Avenue (Ilford) eastbound, but 149.9 at BP Eastern Avenue westbound.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
    That's a sine of intelligence.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
    I can too. But I'm having therapy and it's definitely helping.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
    That's a sine of intelligence.
    You just said that cos you wanted to show off.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    stodge said:


    The headline number is the reporting day number, which gives us Murder Tuesday, when they report deaths for about 3 days in one go.

    The fact is the numbers look bad for all the scientific and data analytical exposition behind them.

    People see "263 dead" and will assume that's the number who died yesterday.

    Don't confuse perception and truth.
    The fact is that that is number of death reported that day. Which is a fact of interest.

    What it doesn't tell us, is what is actually happening.

    Hence day of death numbers.

    As to perception, that is for iSage. Or is it phlogiston theory, that they are experts in?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
    That's a sine of intelligence.
    You just said that cos you wanted to show off.
    And I wanted to go off at a tangent.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    Trigonometry is easily understood, and satisfying for all sorts of reasons.

    And historically bloody important. How do you think the ordnance survey worked out the height of things?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    If I ever met the Queen I hope I’d say: “Hi Mrs Windsor, can I call you Liz?”

    If I ever met her I’d ask her if she could give me a few grand. She’s got plenty.
    She can't afford the bus fare to Glasgow.
    Hmm, I’d better avoid her then in case she taps me up for a few quid then

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Third like Charles

    Changing name on becoming king would be such an act of unforced out of touch wankerdom that I am pretty certain he'll do it and be Edward 9 or something.
    George VII would be favourite.

    Charles has unfortunate links to regicides and adulterers, Philip is complicated by the fact nobody is sure whether the other King Philip counts in regnal numbers, and all the Arthurs died before they could take the throne.
    Can he just call himself WTF he likes then? How about Nigel I ?

    Gary II?

    Kai III ?
    King Alan the first.
    Yes, what do you want?
    A peerage and some countryside in the Durham Dales with a nice house chucked in, please, your majesty.
    I'll see what I can do, peasant.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
    That's a sine of intelligence.
    You just said that cos you wanted to show off.
    Quite the opposite actually!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    I loved trigonometry - can still remember SoHCaHToA to this day.
    That's a sine of intelligence.
    You just said that cos you wanted to show off.
    And I wanted to go off at a tangent.
    Well, it's a new angle, certainly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,083
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.

    Blimey, you were lucky never to study trigonometry.
    Trigonometry is easily understood, and satisfying for all sorts of reasons.

    And historically bloody important. How do you think the ordnance survey worked out the height of things?
    Badly.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,348

    Petrol 145 even at Tesco ffs

    141.7 at Asda in the Broch. I expect to find some a penny or so cheaper tomorrow in Aberdeen
    Up 3p since the weekend in downtown East London - 141.9 at Tesco's in the Barking Road.

    Now, my recollection of 2008 was petrol reached 147.9p a litre just before the GFC but I might be getting confused with the oil price which I think was also up to that before Lehman Brothers fell.

    Back to my dodgy memory and I also recall it was about $2 to the £ - I remember going to Las Vegas that year and living very well and buying three pairs of good shoes for the equivalent of £50 at an outlet store.

    The point is, how much of the current rise in petrol prices is the result of the depreciation of sterling against the greenback - I think it's about $1.37 to the £ currently?
  • Dune Part II greenlit by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures.
    Guess I can start fancasting Damian Lewis as Emperor Shaddam IV now.
This discussion has been closed.