Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Under the National Curriculum all under 14s must learn about the British monarchy from Anglo Saxon times to the 20th century in history lessons
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Under the National Curriculum all under 14s must learn about the British monarchy from Anglo Saxon times to the 20th century in history lessons
British kings? Or just English ones? How many King Kenneths have there been?
I am using the ONS mid-2021 population figures. Which are the most accurate numbers for people actually existing.
The dashboard is (partly) using the NIMS population numbers. Which are less accurate.
I was also speak of the 1st dose rates.
You seem curiously interested in perception - why?
I've had this debate with @Philip_Thompson in the past - it seems absurd the Government's own website should be using inaccurate data. You and he are adamant the ONS numbers are correct yet the website uses NIMS.
I talk about perception because this website is called Politicalbetting.com.
Politics is about perception - that's all it is about to be honest. Getting past what people think is the truth to what is actually the truth - the percentage of Muslims in the population, the level of crime in their neighbourhood - is the difficult bit.
What the public thinks to be true is especially important for a populist Government which wants to be seen to be on the right side of public opinion at all times so perception is very important.
It's all very well churning out the "facts" on a daily basis but the perceptions people have about cases, deaths, vaccines, mask wearing, social distancing aren't always what the figures would lead you to believe.
Sometimes we have to step back and ask ourselves how we would convince someone at the bus stop or for @Anabobazina's benefit, someone down the pub, what they believe to be the truth is wrong and the data you present is in fact accurate.
The people 'down the pub' don't care if the percentage of people double-vaccinated according to a website is xx.x% or xy.z%
The perceptions they will care about are far more down-to-earth. Are restrictions being imposed? Is the NHS treating them if they're sick? Are their loved ones healthy or sick? Can they keep going to the pub or is it being locked down?
All that matters is that as I said months ago on this site and was roundly criticised for saying it that we reached sufficient herd immunity months ago that we were able to lift all restrictions without seeing the return of exponential growth. The virus has gone from being one of exponential growth that will crash the NHS to an endemic disease in the background as we get on with our lives.
The virus had to burn through the pools of unvaccinated etc people which was primarily kids and antivaxxers. Kids have been back to school unrestricted now for about two months and as we reached half-term the evidence was it had already peaked and was now falling even amongst kids now.
There's a seasonality to this virus as there are for many viruses. So we'll need more immunity going into the winter to maintain herd immunity, thankfully it looks like we've achieved that over the autumn. I worry more for those nations that haven't been so successful.
Lapsed as in "still a member of the Conservative Party" with membership fees in arrears...?
You are just ridiculous
My membership came due on the 1st September and I have not renewed it
At times you are just tiresome
I'm confused now. I said you quit and you said no I didn't. Lapsed as in no longer a member? Or lapsed as in now 2 months deficient in your membership payments but still counted as a member (as you would be in Labour)
I am not a member of the conservative party - end of story
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.
LOL. Interviewed in English and answers in Romanian.
Whether or not she’s the real deal when it comes to tennis remains to be seen, but her instinct for PR is undoubtedly world class.
I didn't know that they used PR in tennis.
I thought it was First Past the Net Post.
I once sat next to Tina Turner during a tennis match.
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.
LOL. Interviewed in English and answers in Romanian.
Whether or not she’s the real deal when it comes to tennis remains to be seen, but her instinct for PR is undoubtedly world class.
I didn't know that they used PR in tennis.
I thought it was First Past the Net Post.
I once sat next to Tina Turner during a tennis match.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
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?
None of it stodge.
Actually the pound/dollar exchange rate has been incredibly stable since early in the year (about February). Unusually stable considering its not exactly been a normal year. The pound is actually worth more now than it was a year ago, more than it was worth almost any time for the past five years in fact. So if the exchange rate was the driver then prices should have gone down not up.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Lapsed as in "still a member of the Conservative Party" with membership fees in arrears...?
You are just ridiculous
My membership came due on the 1st September and I have not renewed it
At times you are just tiresome
I'm confused now. I said you quit and you said no I didn't. Lapsed as in no longer a member? Or lapsed as in now 2 months deficient in your membership payments but still counted as a member (as you would be in Labour)
I am not a member of the conservative party - end of story
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
I wouldn't say thick. Probably of average intelligence, like most royals. I think that she would have a good EQ, though not convinced that Charles does.
Lapsed as in "still a member of the Conservative Party" with membership fees in arrears...?
You are just ridiculous
My membership came due on the 1st September and I have not renewed it
At times you are just tiresome
I'm confused now. I said you quit and you said no I didn't. Lapsed as in no longer a member? Or lapsed as in now 2 months deficient in your membership payments but still counted as a member (as you would be in Labour)
I am not a member of the conservative party - end of story
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.
LOL. Interviewed in English and answers in Romanian.
Whether or not she’s the real deal when it comes to tennis remains to be seen, but her instinct for PR is undoubtedly world class.
I didn't know that they used PR in tennis.
I thought it was First Past the Net Post.
I once sat next to Tina Turner during a tennis match.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
I think we might disagree on what makes an intellectual...
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
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.
LOL. Interviewed in English and answers in Romanian.
Whether or not she’s the real deal when it comes to tennis remains to be seen, but her instinct for PR is undoubtedly world class.
I didn't know that they used PR in tennis.
I thought it was First Past the Net Post.
I once sat next to Tina Turner during a tennis match.
I don't think she understood the scoring system.
What’s forty-love got to do with it?
Absolutely Nothing, as Frankie Goes To Hollywood might say....
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.
LOL. Interviewed in English and answers in Romanian.
Whether or not she’s the real deal when it comes to tennis remains to be seen, but her instinct for PR is undoubtedly world class.
I didn't know that they used PR in tennis.
I thought it was First Past the Net Post.
I once sat next to Tina Turner during a tennis match.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
Lapsed as in "still a member of the Conservative Party" with membership fees in arrears...?
You are just ridiculous
My membership came due on the 1st September and I have not renewed it
At times you are just tiresome
I'm confused now. I said you quit and you said no I didn't. Lapsed as in no longer a member? Or lapsed as in now 2 months deficient in your membership payments but still counted as a member (as you would be in Labour)
I am not a member of the conservative party - end of story
But Rochdale will be moving over to Con soon!
LAB > SLIB > CON. It's a natural progression! 👍
Yep. Matt "I love Parmos Me" Vickers said the exact same thing
EDIT. Not strictly his fault because he isn't actually responsible for anything other than drinking more pints than William Hague, but there has been much mocking on Teesside of the "Parmo" that they served in the Palace.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
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.
LOL. Interviewed in English and answers in Romanian.
Whether or not she’s the real deal when it comes to tennis remains to be seen, but her instinct for PR is undoubtedly world class.
I didn't know that they used PR in tennis.
I thought it was First Past the Net Post.
I once sat next to Tina Turner during a tennis match.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
No
Alfred and the cakes is a critical part of history though. At the time it was a capital offence to criticise the king.
So people told the story about burning the cakes.
But meaning that he neglected his duties as King, which is why the Danes beat three kinds of shit out of him and he ended up in Athelney in the first place
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
Do you think there was anonymous marking back then too? Being interested in lots of things is great, but I fear he has little depth of understanding. I can only relate a FOAF story, but if true it’s revealing. It concerns an engineer hired to tutor the prince. Charles had a limited attention span, and just was not interested. I have not met him. He may be far more intelligent than he seems, but the perception (word of the night) is that he is not.
Do you have a link to the actual research? I can't see past the paywall.
Sounds promising, it has been increasingly obvious for a year or so that aerosol is the main form of transmission.
The article doesn't give a link. I know we shouldn't copy articles wholesale here, but here's a quote:
An air filtration machine made all traces of Covid-19 “disappear” from the air in a hospital ward, a study has revealed, which scientists say could signal the end of in-hospital transmission.
The machines, which contain a high-efficiency particulate absorbing filter and ultraviolet light, were placed in one Covid-19 ward and one intensive care unit (ICU) at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge.
During a three-week trial at the height of the second wave in January, air samples were taken when the machines were switched both on and off.
In the first week, when the filter was off, Covid-19 was detected in the air on all five days of sampling in the Covid ward.
But during the second week, when the device ran continuously, no Covid-19 samples were identified.
The results were “really quite striking”, said lead author Dr Andrew Conway-Morris, a critical care doctor at Addenbrookes.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, state control of the economy is socialism.
Support for the monarchy and landed gentry and private wealth is the essence of Toryism
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
A 2:2? What a thicko.
In 1970 when only 10% went to university the average degree class was 2:2, only due to grade inflation since 2000 has the average degree class now become a 2:1
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
A 2:2? What a thicko.
In 1970 when only 10% went to university the average degree class was 2:2, only due to grade inflation since 2000 has the average degree class now become a 2:1
And was HRH the Prince of Wales’s work marked anonymously?
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
Charles is brighter than the average person and better read than the average person, the Queen is closer to the average person, she is more interested in horses than reading a book or intellectual discussion, though she speaks good French. She is also more practical than Charles and was a mechanic in the War
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, state control of the economy is socialism.
Support for the monarchy and landed gentry and private wealth is the essence of Toryism
Do you have a link to the actual research? I can't see past the paywall.
Sounds promising, it has been increasingly obvious for a year or so that aerosol is the main form of transmission.
The article doesn't give a link. I know we shouldn't copy articles wholesale here, but here's a quote:
An air filtration machine made all traces of Covid-19 “disappear” from the air in a hospital ward, a study has revealed, which scientists say could signal the end of in-hospital transmission.
The machines, which contain a high-efficiency particulate absorbing filter and ultraviolet light, were placed in one Covid-19 ward and one intensive care unit (ICU) at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge.
During a three-week trial at the height of the second wave in January, air samples were taken when the machines were switched both on and off.
In the first week, when the filter was off, Covid-19 was detected in the air on all five days of sampling in the Covid ward.
But during the second week, when the device ran continuously, no Covid-19 samples were identified.
The results were “really quite striking”, said lead author Dr Andrew Conway-Morris, a critical care doctor at Addenbrookes.
So a fan, a HEPA filter, and UV light nicked from the cold cabinet at the local butcher?
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
A 2:2? What a thicko.
In 1970 when only 10% went to university the average degree class was 2:2, only due to grade inflation since 2000 has the average degree class now become a 2:1
Do think he got to Cambridge on his ability or his connections?
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
I expect that a Labour government will wipe out the Student debt at some point. It will be an election winning policy, particularly if funded by a wealth tax.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, state control of the economy is socialism.
Support for the monarchy and landed gentry and private wealth is the essence of Toryism
Not anymore
Yes more, the Tories have not raised inheritance tax and are not imposing a wealth tax
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
That's rather harsh on yourself, Charles. But kudos for the honesty.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
A hobby horse does not an intellectual make, even in the low bar world of the Royals.
Charles got a 2:2 in History from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1970, a perfectly respectable degree back then, especially from Oxbridge and then also studied at Aberystwyth for a term. He also has a lifelong interest in a whole range of subjects from architecture to the environment
A Desmond is nothing to be proud of.
Isn't a 1970 2:2 equivalent to a Nobel Prize under modern grade inflation?
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, state control of the economy is socialism.
Support for the monarchy and landed gentry and private wealth is the essence of Toryism
Not anymore
Yes more, the Tories have not raised inheritance tax and are not imposing a wealth tax
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
If you meet a left-winger, then you've met a left-winger. If you meet left-wingers all day, then maybe you're a little too right-wing?
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
So you voted Tory when they lost in 2005 and failed to win a majority in 2010 but did not vote Tory when they won majorities in 2015 and 2019. So again you are atypical.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
If you meet a left-winger, then you've met a left-winger. If you meet left-wingers all day, then maybe you're a little too right-wing?
With apologies to Raylan Givens.
In my case it’s mainly because I work at University...😀
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Do you have a link to the actual research? I can't see past the paywall.
Sounds promising, it has been increasingly obvious for a year or so that aerosol is the main form of transmission.
The article doesn't give a link. I know we shouldn't copy articles wholesale here, but here's a quote:
An air filtration machine made all traces of Covid-19 “disappear” from the air in a hospital ward, a study has revealed, which scientists say could signal the end of in-hospital transmission.
The machines, which contain a high-efficiency particulate absorbing filter and ultraviolet light, were placed in one Covid-19 ward and one intensive care unit (ICU) at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge.
During a three-week trial at the height of the second wave in January, air samples were taken when the machines were switched both on and off.
In the first week, when the filter was off, Covid-19 was detected in the air on all five days of sampling in the Covid ward.
But during the second week, when the device ran continuously, no Covid-19 samples were identified.
The results were “really quite striking”, said lead author Dr Andrew Conway-Morris, a critical care doctor at Addenbrookes.
Do you have a link to the actual research? I can't see past the paywall.
Sounds promising, it has been increasingly obvious for a year or so that aerosol is the main form of transmission.
The article doesn't give a link. I know we shouldn't copy articles wholesale here, but here's a quote:
An air filtration machine made all traces of Covid-19 “disappear” from the air in a hospital ward, a study has revealed, which scientists say could signal the end of in-hospital transmission.
The machines, which contain a high-efficiency particulate absorbing filter and ultraviolet light, were placed in one Covid-19 ward and one intensive care unit (ICU) at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge.
During a three-week trial at the height of the second wave in January, air samples were taken when the machines were switched both on and off.
In the first week, when the filter was off, Covid-19 was detected in the air on all five days of sampling in the Covid ward.
But during the second week, when the device ran continuously, no Covid-19 samples were identified.
The results were “really quite striking”, said lead author Dr Andrew Conway-Morris, a critical care doctor at Addenbrookes.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
He may have wanted to do something about housing, but the ghastly outcome of Poundbury leaves a lot to be desired.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
So you voted Tory when they lost in 2005 and failed to win a majority in 2010 but did not vote Tory when they won majorities in 2015 and 2019. So again you are atypical.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
According to your implied definition, only the swingiest of swing voters are “typical” Your definition has typical voters being a small minority. But I doubt you can even recognise that.
Or that you’ve effectively acknowledged that for parents to ensure their children don’t lose out in life, they have to ensure the Tories are defeated.
Not that the Tories would suddenly be flavour of the month after their policy is overturned or they lose power.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems got students. Like traditionally the Tories got people as they aged. Traditions break.
Just ask Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems how quick it is to be forgiven after screwing over students.
Do you have a link to the actual research? I can't see past the paywall.
Sounds promising, it has been increasingly obvious for a year or so that aerosol is the main form of transmission.
The article doesn't give a link. I know we shouldn't copy articles wholesale here, but here's a quote:
An air filtration machine made all traces of Covid-19 “disappear” from the air in a hospital ward, a study has revealed, which scientists say could signal the end of in-hospital transmission.
The machines, which contain a high-efficiency particulate absorbing filter and ultraviolet light, were placed in one Covid-19 ward and one intensive care unit (ICU) at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge.
During a three-week trial at the height of the second wave in January, air samples were taken when the machines were switched both on and off.
In the first week, when the filter was off, Covid-19 was detected in the air on all five days of sampling in the Covid ward.
But during the second week, when the device ran continuously, no Covid-19 samples were identified.
The results were “really quite striking”, said lead author Dr Andrew Conway-Morris, a critical care doctor at Addenbrookes.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
He may have wanted to do something about housing, but the ghastly outcome of Poundbury leaves a lot to be desired.
I dislike the execution - bad pastiche - but, to be fair, it does seem to be an awful lot more popular than the efforts of the regular housebuilding companies.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Worth bearing in mind that Chas has an impossible act to follow.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
No, but a horse riding accident in the 1970s or similar would have done it.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
So you voted Tory when they lost in 2005 and failed to win a majority in 2010 but did not vote Tory when they won majorities in 2015 and 2019. So again you are atypical.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
According to your implied definition, only the swingiest of swing voters are “typical” Your definition has typical voters being a small minority. But I doubt you can even recognise that.
Or that you’ve effectively acknowledged that for parents to ensure their children don’t lose out in life, they have to ensure the Tories are defeated.
Not that the Tories would suddenly be flavour of the month after their policy is overturned or they lose power.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems got students. Like traditionally the Tories got people as they aged. Traditions break.
Just ask Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems how quick it is to be forgiven after screwing over students.
Normally Labour got students actually, they just went LD under Charles Kennedy and in 2010 in a brief protest over Blair's fees. They are back voting Labour again.
As I pointed out similarly over 55s normally voted Tory but voted for Blair in 1997, then went back to voting Tory again and still vote Tory now
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Worth bearing in mind that Chas has an impossible act to follow.
All the more reason to take a different approach.
He does rather remind me of his grandfather at times.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Worth bearing in mind that Chas has an impossible act to follow.
Impossible to follow, in the sense of being a great? Or that she just won't die?
While we are the subject of Private Eye, I do love the occasional tales of when Charles hears news that leads him to believe his time has come. Heir of Sorrows indeed.
Lapsed as in "still a member of the Conservative Party" with membership fees in arrears...?
You are just ridiculous
My membership came due on the 1st September and I have not renewed it
At times you are just tiresome
I'm confused now. I said you quit and you said no I didn't. Lapsed as in no longer a member? Or lapsed as in now 2 months deficient in your membership payments but still counted as a member (as you would be in Labour)
I am not a member of the conservative party - end of story
But Rochdale will be moving over to Con soon!
LAB > SLIB > CON. It's a natural progression! 👍
Yep. Matt "I love Parmos Me" Vickers said the exact same thing
EDIT. Not strictly his fault because he isn't actually responsible for anything other than drinking more pints than William Hague, but there has been much mocking on Teesside of the "Parmo" that they served in the Palace.
At this years Craft Beer Calling on the Town Moor there was a street food vendor specialising in the humble Parmo. Parmo-Rama. It’s now trendy street food too. Didn’t try it myself. Went for the Bao Bun.
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
Charles II was OK, wasn't he? Restoration, Royal Society and all that?
No budget spread betting yet from Sportingindex which is a pity. If they do its best to sell the words Education , NHS and Euro I find . Million and Billion always seem to come in around the mark.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
So you voted Tory when they lost in 2005 and failed to win a majority in 2010 but did not vote Tory when they won majorities in 2015 and 2019. So again you are atypical.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
According to your implied definition, only the swingiest of swing voters are “typical” Your definition has typical voters being a small minority. But I doubt you can even recognise that.
Or that you’ve effectively acknowledged that for parents to ensure their children don’t lose out in life, they have to ensure the Tories are defeated.
Not that the Tories would suddenly be flavour of the month after their policy is overturned or they lose power.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems got students. Like traditionally the Tories got people as they aged. Traditions break.
Just ask Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems how quick it is to be forgiven after screwing over students.
Normally Labour got students actually, they just went LD under Charles Kennedy in 2005 and in 2010 in a brief protest over Blair's fees. They are back voting Labour again.
As I pointed out similarly over 55s normally voted Tory but voted for Blair in 1997, then went back to voting Tory again and still vote Tory now
I am not voting conservative unless they win my vote back, but then you have already excommunicated me along with many more who do not share your 1950 Little Englander outlook
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Worth bearing in mind that Chas has an impossible act to follow.
All the more reason to take a different approach.
He does rather remind me of his grandfather at times.
While not bright, he does seem to have been ahead of the curve on race relations, the environment and housing.
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
Charles II was OK, wasn't he? Restoration, Royal Society and all that?
Adultery, and moral cowardice in the face of the plague.
Ten O'Clock News - Big_G was absolutely right. Dishi has leaked that they are lifting the pay freeze on the poor sods who worked in critical public services throughout the pox.
But won't say by how much.
Or give even a suggestion about where this how much will come for.
Until next year. So its a budget leak of a "pledge" that isn't costed. Isn't happening. But people absolutely should vote for possible jam next year.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
If you meet a left-winger, then you've met a left-winger. If you meet left-wingers all day, then maybe you're a little too right-wing?
With apologies to Raylan Givens.
In my case it’s mainly because I work at University...😀
How odd. My university colleagues are all very centrist, but I do find everyone else I meet to be insufferably right wing
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
Charles is brighter than the average person and better read than the average person, the Queen is closer to the average person, she is more interested in horses than reading a book or intellectual discussion, though she speaks good French. She is also more practical than Charles and was a mechanic in the War
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
Sooner or later we will get a really unpopular monarch, like Andrew. How many here would remain monarchists and grit their teeth for 20-30 years of King Andrew of equivalent? The system requires you to take the rough with the smooth.
Ten O'Clock News - Big_G was absolutely right. Dishi has leaked that they are lifting the pay freeze on the poor sods who worked in critical public services throughout the pox.
But won't say by how much.
Or give even a suggestion about where this how much will come for.
Until next year. So its a budget leak of a "pledge" that isn't costed. Isn't happening. But people absolutely should vote for possible jam next year.
I take it all back.
That was announced yesterday and subject to the pay review body recommendations
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
Charles II was OK, wasn't he? Restoration, Royal Society and all that?
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
No, but a horse riding accident in the 1970s or similar would have done it.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
So you voted Tory when they lost in 2005 and failed to win a majority in 2010 but did not vote Tory when they won majorities in 2015 and 2019. So again you are atypical.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
According to your implied definition, only the swingiest of swing voters are “typical” Your definition has typical voters being a small minority. But I doubt you can even recognise that.
Or that you’ve effectively acknowledged that for parents to ensure their children don’t lose out in life, they have to ensure the Tories are defeated.
Not that the Tories would suddenly be flavour of the month after their policy is overturned or they lose power.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems got students. Like traditionally the Tories got people as they aged. Traditions break.
Just ask Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems how quick it is to be forgiven after screwing over students.
Normally Labour got students actually, they just went LD under Charles Kennedy in 2005 and in 2010 in a brief protest over Blair's fees. They are back voting Labour again.
As I pointed out similarly over 55s normally voted Tory but voted for Blair in 1997, then went back to voting Tory again and still vote Tory now
The student vote was once a decent chunk of the Lib Dem vote. It no longer is. Unless you believe that a similar proportion of them vote Lib Dem in 2017 or 2019 as did in, say, 2001 (24% of 18-24s) or 1997 (16% of 18-24s).
And I’m pointing out that if you piss on 55-year-olds for forty years, you should not expect them to have quite the attraction for you that they used to do. You seem intent on wanting to believe that they will miraculously forgive and forget everything when they hit a certain point in their lives. Just because things have happened before doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed to happen again. Not if you change the input conditions.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
If you meet a left-winger, then you've met a left-winger. If you meet left-wingers all day, then maybe you're a little too right-wing?
With apologies to Raylan Givens.
In my case it’s mainly because I work at University...😀
How odd. My university colleagues are all very centrist, but I do find everyone else I meet to be insufferably right wing
I occasionally help out with the local Lions club. The contrast in attitudes between my university colleagues and the collection of mostly older, white, retired Lions is stark. Put it this way, very different opinions about Brexit.
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...?
'Smashed down the government' - bit over the top
HMG should respect Parliament but the leaks have happened under every government.
I expect Hoyle will have a go before the statement then the budget will dominate the agenda until COP26
Bit over the top? The Spectator suggests that the Deputy Speaker simply thank Dishi for his Budget statement when he stands up and hands over to Starmer. And she could.
Leaks have never - ever - happened on this scale for the budget. The entire budget. Briefed to the press. So that they had 3 days to report the juiciest sections.
If Starmer's speech team are any good, the leaks ought to make his impossible job much easier. He knows what he's replying to.
Admittedly, that's a fairly big if.
Meanwhile, LBC are flagging the student loan thing (i.e. a tax rise that isn't technically a tax rise and magically only affects younger people)... That's not on, is it?
As HYUFD will point out, young people generally do not vote Tory and are therefore fair game. If they didn't want to be taxed to death they should have voted Tory in 2019 - especially all the ones who were too young. If they had the best interests of the country would stop them now being taxed to death.
In more seriousness, I’m 48, and not personally affected by this. But those arseholes are fucking over my daughters.
If this does come to pass, I will be angrier with them than for a long time. But it will only last as long as my kids are affected. So, a little over forty years, if the rumours are true. And the Tories are going to be hoping that people will migrate to voting for them during the years that they are fucking them over.
The Tories have not won under 35s since 1987.
The Tories can win a majority as long as they win most over 45s and probably hold onto power as long as they win over 50s. Even now most people get on the property ladder by 40. They then have assets and so income taxes are less of an issue as they also have an asset's value to protect.
I doubt Rishi will raise income tax however and I hope he does not
28 year olds will be 38 in ten years time. Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate. And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry. And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
They may well be 38 in ten years time, however the Tories can still win a majority even if most of them vote Labour as long as they win most over 45s. Even when they get to 48 and even if most still vote Labour the Tories can still likely win most seats as long as they win most over 50s.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
And when they’re 52 and would formerly be free of student loan debt and now have ten extra years to go, you think they’ll lunge for the Tories?
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
By then Labour would likely have been in power and have removed it but the assets they have to protect will outweigh in terms of house value the remaining student loan debt left.
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
Nope. I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition. Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh. That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
So you voted Tory when they lost in 2005 and failed to win a majority in 2010 but did not vote Tory when they won majorities in 2015 and 2019. So again you are atypical.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
According to your implied definition, only the swingiest of swing voters are “typical” Your definition has typical voters being a small minority. But I doubt you can even recognise that.
Or that you’ve effectively acknowledged that for parents to ensure their children don’t lose out in life, they have to ensure the Tories are defeated.
Not that the Tories would suddenly be flavour of the month after their policy is overturned or they lose power.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems got students. Like traditionally the Tories got people as they aged. Traditions break.
Just ask Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems how quick it is to be forgiven after screwing over students.
Normally Labour got students actually, they just went LD under Charles Kennedy in 2005 and in 2010 in a brief protest over Blair's fees. They are back voting Labour again.
As I pointed out similarly over 55s normally voted Tory but voted for Blair in 1997, then went back to voting Tory again and still vote Tory now
I am not voting conservative unless they win my vote back, but then you have already excommunicated me along with many more who do not share your 1950 Little Englander outlook
Unless you demand the interning of British Citizens abroad for their crime of worshipping the wrong God or having the wrong genes, you aren't worthy of the Essicks Massiv.
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
Sooner or later we will get a really unpopular monarch, like Andrew. How many here would remain monarchists and grit their teeth for 20-30 years of King Andrew of equivalent? The system requires you to take the rough with the smooth.
George IV was pelted by the London Mob when out in his carriage I believe.
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
Wouldn't the person someone commits adultery with also be an adulterer?
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
No, but a horse riding accident in the 1970s or similar would have done it.
The Saxons had it right in choosing the most suitable heir for the job and buying off the rest. It was the bastard from normandy that insisted on the roulette of primogeniture.
Can you imagine if Randy was the one limbering up on the touch line in his tracksuit right now. Ugh.
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
Wouldn't the person someone commits adultery with also be an adulterer?
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
No, but a horse riding accident in the 1970s or similar would have done it.
The Saxons had it right in choosing the most suitable heir for the job and buying off the rest. It was the bastard from normandy that insisted on the roulette of primogeniture.
Can you imagine if Randy was the one limbering up on the touch line in his tracksuit right now. Ugh.
As we are a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy most of us would not notice much difference whoever is monarch.
It may be better to have more educated and moral monarchs than thick womanisers but we have had plenty of both in our past and often the latter proved better on the battlefield which in the Middle Ages was a key part of their role even if the former proved better in terms of improving the arts and making just laws.
Andrew may not be an Oxbridge graduate like his older brother but he fought in the Falklands War while Charles never saw combat
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
The Tories still getting an absolute hammering over the raw sewage in the oceans and rivers debacle on social media and the news. This is typical of the comment. Nothing to confirm it’s veracity of course. The party media management is totally shambolic.
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.
Links to adulterers? I understood it was a bit closer to home than that!
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
Wouldn't the person someone commits adultery with also be an adulterer?
Good question - I'm not sure. If the other person is unmarried then no? Or do I misunderstand the definition?
Comments
Ten years later, they will be 48. And with still nearly 15 years left to pay, because the Tories will have retrospectively changed the terms of their loan.
In the past, people have tended to migrate towards the Tories as they age. In the future, they will have far more reason not to migrate.
Those who graduated before 2012 will be a diminishing share of the electorate.
And, of course, parents of those (such as myself) will also be angry.
And I already have a house, so the Tories don’t have anything to hold out for me. Fuck them.
How many King Kenneths have there been?
The perceptions they will care about are far more down-to-earth. Are restrictions being imposed? Is the NHS treating them if they're sick? Are their loved ones healthy or sick? Can they keep going to the pub or is it being locked down?
All that matters is that as I said months ago on this site and was roundly criticised for saying it that we reached sufficient herd immunity months ago that we were able to lift all restrictions without seeing the return of exponential growth. The virus has gone from being one of exponential growth that will crash the NHS to an endemic disease in the background as we get on with our lives.
The virus had to burn through the pools of unvaccinated etc people which was primarily kids and antivaxxers. Kids have been back to school unrestricted now for about two months and as we reached half-term the evidence was it had already peaked and was now falling even amongst kids now.
There's a seasonality to this virus as there are for many viruses. So we'll need more immunity going into the winter to maintain herd immunity, thankfully it looks like we've achieved that over the autumn. I worry more for those nations that haven't been so successful.
I don't think she understood the scoring system.
In the past people have migrated to the Tories as they buy property, they still do today. The one exception was Blair in 1997 who won every generation including over 65s but that was a once in a century landslide defeat for the Tories unlikely ever to be repeated in my lifetime
Actually the pound/dollar exchange rate has been incredibly stable since early in the year (about February). Unusually stable considering its not exactly been a normal year. The pound is actually worth more now than it was a year ago, more than it was worth almost any time for the past five years in fact. So if the exchange rate was the driver then prices should have gone down not up.
‘Striking’ results of study show the £2,000 machines wiped out all traces of the virus on Covid-19 ward
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/26/air-filters-remove-covid-hospital-ward-finds-study/
I had a look at the Budget Bingo, but not tempted at all. No Christmas bonus for Shadsy from me this time.
LAB > SLIB > CON. It's a natural progression! 👍
This new Bozo-HY Tory Party is a sight to behold.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul
Sorry to report that Janan Ganesh has won First Line of the Day *again*
https://ft.com/content/5be20065-74b6-497f-bea8-3c3357e9ee51
I’ve got property, yet, mysteriously, I have no extra attraction to the Tories. Why should I? What benefit do I get from them? I’ve got my house now.
Although if people don’t get free of student debt until they’re in their sixties, that’ll affect how much money they have to spend on property.
And, of course, it’s not winner-takes-all in age groups. If you shift from, say, 45-40 behind in and age group to 55-30 behind, it’s not as if it’s no effect, even though you were losing before and would be losing again.
Sounds promising, it has been increasingly obvious for a year or so that aerosol is the main form of transmission.
EDIT. Not strictly his fault because he isn't actually responsible for anything other than drinking more pints than William Hague, but there has been much mocking on Teesside of the "Parmo" that they served in the Palace.
So people told the story about burning the cakes.
But meaning that he neglected his duties as King, which is why the Danes beat three kinds of shit out of him and he ended up in Athelney in the first place
As far as I can see you are an ideological leftwinger who would never vote Tory, so atypical, I am an ideological rightwinger who voted Tory even as a student, so atypical, I am talking the average voter.
I have not met him. He may be far more intelligent than he seems, but the perception (word of the night) is that he is not.
Support for the monarchy and landed gentry and private wealth is the essence of Toryism
So a fan, a HEPA filter, and UV light nicked from the cold cabinet at the local butcher?
I voted Tory in 2005 and 2010. And supported the Coalition.
Most of those who know me would laugh like a drain to hear me described as “an ideological leftwinger.”
I can expound for hours on the superiority of free markets over state control. If pushed, I would have voted anyone-but-Corbyn both of the last two times. Someone who would be identified on any political spectrum as “Orange Book Liberal or Cameroon Conservative” is NOT who you should be pushing away.
And describing as an “ideological leftwinger…” Heh.
That’s funny. I think you tend to identify everyone who disagrees with you as that.
If you meet left-wingers all day, then maybe you're a little too right-wing?
With apologies to Raylan Givens.
If you prefer free markets to state control that can just make you a liberal, it does not mean you are a Tory.
We won a majority of 80 in 2019 when most Orange Book Liberals voted LD as did plenty of Cameron Conservatives because we won UKIP 2015 voters and Labour Leavers.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
This looks like it:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.16.21263684v1.full-text
Works on other pathogens too, by the sound of it.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.16.21263684v1.full-text
Works on other pathogens too, by the sound of it.
To be honest, I'm surprised that this hasn't been done before - filtering and sterilising air isn't exactly a new thing.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Your definition has typical voters being a small minority.
But I doubt you can even recognise that.
Or that you’ve effectively acknowledged that for parents to ensure their children don’t lose out in life, they have to ensure the Tories are defeated.
Not that the Tories would suddenly be flavour of the month after their policy is overturned or they lose power.
Traditionally, the Lib Dems got students. Like traditionally the Tories got people as they aged. Traditions break.
Just ask Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems how quick it is to be forgiven after screwing over students.
Operating theatres and ICU are. This sounds as if it is being used in repurposed temporary wards, such as Theatre Recovery Areas at my hospital.
@AllieHBNews
Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Test & Trace criticised as ‘eyewatering’ waste of cash” #TomorrowsPapersToday
(Allegedly etc. My main source is 'The Crown')
As I pointed out similarly over 55s normally voted Tory but voted for Blair in 1997, then went back to voting Tory again and still vote Tory now
He does rather remind me of his grandfather at times.
At this years Craft Beer Calling on the Town Moor there was a street food vendor specialising in the humble Parmo. Parmo-Rama. It’s now trendy street food too. Didn’t try it myself. Went for the Bao Bun.
Also Rishi Sunak a water sipper or not ?
But won't say by how much.
Or give even a suggestion about where this how much will come for.
Until next year. So its a budget leak of a "pledge" that isn't costed. Isn't happening. But people absolutely should vote for possible jam next year.
I take it all back.
And I’m pointing out that if you piss on 55-year-olds for forty years, you should not expect them to have quite the attraction for you that they used to do.
You seem intent on wanting to believe that they will miraculously forgive and forget everything when they hit a certain point in their lives.
Just because things have happened before doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed to happen again. Not if you change the input conditions.
Can you imagine if Randy was the one limbering up on the touch line in his tracksuit right now. Ugh.
It may be better to have more educated and moral monarchs than thick womanisers but we have had plenty of both in our past and often the latter proved better on the battlefield which in the Middle Ages was a key part of their role even if the former proved better in terms of improving the arts and making just laws.
Andrew may not be an Oxbridge graduate like his older brother but he fought in the Falklands War while Charles never saw combat
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
https://twitter.com/holnicotenh/status/1452962051211636746?s=21