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?
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
Given you are a former Blair voting Remainer if Starmer cannot even win you back he may as well pack up and go home
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
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.
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
(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)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
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?
Sometimes the person doesn't know they are committing adultery.
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.
The worrying tangent to that is, would we ever know? If a hypothetical King Jimmy was on the throne, routinely abusing his position of trust would it be all hush hush? "Lesser" institutions have bent over backwards done their utmost to brush scandal under the carpet, what would be done for the monarch himself?
This is the serious reason behind my excitable iconoclasm this evening. We need to get used to imagining these people as venal, stupid, selfish, and corrupt, because there's a strong risk of unchecked ("soft") power falling into the wrong hands. Better to tear down the institution completely; it does nothing for us. But falling short of that, let's assume they're as likely to be worthless tossers as they are paragons of virtue. Just like everyone else.
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.
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
Given you are a former Blair voting Remainer if Starmer cannot even win you back he may as well pack up and go home
You are doing a great job of discarding conservatives who have supported the party long before you were even in nappies and you need to realise you are one of the best examples of why not to vote conservative
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.
I would loyally support King Andrew or anyone else who is monarch as a loyal Tory monarchist, albeit I accept that is a minority view.
However, the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and their children would all have to die in Andrew's lifetime for him to become King so the chances are near 0%
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?
Sometimes the person doesn't know they are committing adultery.
Apparently only adulterer (under old definitions at least) if involving a married woman. With married man just fornication. Due to adultery requiring adulteration of the blood line.
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.
I would loyally support King Andrew or anyone else who is monarch as a loyal Tory monarchist, albeit I accept that is a minority view.
However, the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and their children would all have to die in Andrew's lifetime for him to become King so the chances are near 0%
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.
Yep. 49 hours straight into a harbour in Hampshire. Nearly 1000 hours into the Thames last year. It's no use saying it always happened. Folk don't know that. And they think it stinks. Which it does.
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.
I would loyally support King Andrew or anyone else who is monarch as a loyal Tory monarchist, albeit I accept that is a minority view.
However, the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and their children would all have to die in Andrew's lifetime for him to become King so the chances are near 0%
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
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?
Sometimes the person doesn't know they are committing adultery.
Apparently only adulterer (under old definitions at least) if involving a married woman. With married man just fornication. Due to adultery requiring adulteration of the blood line.
Trust me, you haven't lived until you've been named as co-respondent in someone else's divorce proceedings.
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.
Once people own a property that is their main asset more than offsetting any student loans, they will then almost always vote Tory to keep that asset's value rising and keep out Labour unless there is an ultra centrist Labour leader like Blair who they trust to keep the economy growing and house prices rising as was the case in 1997
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?
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.
Yep. 49 hours straight into a harbour in Hampshire. Nearly 1000 hours into the Thames last year. It's no use saying it always happened. Folk don't know that. And they think it stinks. Which it does.
So time to do something about it. I did hear that there was a clause that woul£ make the water companies responsible for what others might put into the rivers, which seemed odd. I have problem with ratcheting up the pressure get cleaner rivers and seas. Although we won’t be stopping all those fish from peeing in the water too...
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
Given you are a former Blair voting Remainer if Starmer cannot even win you back he may as well pack up and go home
You are doing a great job of discarding conservatives who have supported the party long before you were even in nappies and you need to realise you are one of the best examples of why not to vote conservative
You voted Blair in 1997 and 2001, you voted Remain, you are more likely therefore to leave Boris and move to Starmer Labour or the LDs than Labour Leave voters who voted for Boris in 2019. Boris can still win even if he loses you if he keeps most of the latter
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?
Sometimes the person doesn't know they are committing adultery.
They don't know the other person is married.
When it involves Royals though there must be a fair chance that even the thickest courtier knew the King was married.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
I picture HYUFD sitting at his keyboard wearing a powdered wig.
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?
Sometimes the person doesn't know they are committing adultery.
Apparently only adulterer (under old definitions at least) if involving a married woman. With married man just fornication. Due to adultery requiring adulteration of the blood line.
Trust me, you haven't lived until you've been named as co-respondent in someone else's divorce proceedings.
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.
Sooner or later? We'll get that as soon as Operation London Bridge.
Though one thing is that going forwards the monarchy could quite possibly always be a gerontocracy. Charles is already past retirement age and if he lives as long as either of his parents, then William would be at or close to it too by then.
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
Given you are a former Blair voting Remainer if Starmer cannot even win you back he may as well pack up and go home
You are doing a great job of discarding conservatives who have supported the party long before you were even in nappies and you need to realise you are one of the best examples of why not to vote conservative
You voted Blair in 1997 and 2001, you voted Remain, you are more likely therefore to leave Boris and move to Starmer Labour or the LDs than Labour Leave voters who voted for Boris in 2019. Boris can still win even if he loses you if he keeps most of the latter
Believe you me if he loses the ones you have already excommunicated the conservative party will not be in office
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 government has already admitted that NIMS is an overestimate. Mid-2021 ONS data is clearly the most accurate population projection we have. I don't know why it isn't being used for the lower level data.
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
Given you are a former Blair voting Remainer if Starmer cannot even win you back he may as well pack up and go home
You are doing a great job of discarding conservatives who have supported the party long before you were even in nappies and you need to realise you are one of the best examples of why not to vote conservative
You voted Blair in 1997 and 2001, you voted Remain, you are more likely therefore to leave Boris and move to Starmer Labour or the LDs than Labour Leave voters who voted for Boris in 2019. Boris can still win even if he loses you if he keeps most of the latter
Believe you me if he loses the ones you have already excommunicated the conservative party will not be in office
As long as he holds those who have always voted Tory and those who voted UKIP in 2015 and Labour Leavers who voted Tory for the first time in 2019 Boris will be re elected with another majority, even if he loses everyone else
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
I picture HYUFD sitting at his keyboard wearing a powdered wig.
I am certainly keen on old school, traditional coffee houses and centuries old rural inns
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
Given you are a former Blair voting Remainer if Starmer cannot even win you back he may as well pack up and go home
You are doing a great job of discarding conservatives who have supported the party long before you were even in nappies and you need to realise you are one of the best examples of why not to vote conservative
You voted Blair in 1997 and 2001, you voted Remain, you are more likely therefore to leave Boris and move to Starmer Labour or the LDs than Labour Leave voters who voted for Boris in 2019. Boris can still win even if he loses you if he keeps most of the latter
Believe you me if he loses the ones you have already excommunicated the conservative party will not be in office
As long as he holds those who have always voted Tory and those who voted UKIP in 2015 and Labour Leavers who voted Tory for the first time in 2019 Boris will be re elected with another majority, even if he loses everyone else
You are not an advert for the conservative party in any shape or form, and you are unique as in my near 50 years involvement with the party here in North Wales I have never met anyone quite so like you, thankfully
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.
Yep. 49 hours straight into a harbour in Hampshire. Nearly 1000 hours into the Thames last year. It's no use saying it always happened. Folk don't know that. And they think it stinks. Which it does.
So time to do something about it. I did hear that there was a clause that woul£ make the water companies responsible for what others might put into the rivers, which seemed odd. I have problem with ratcheting up the pressure get cleaner rivers and seas. Although we won’t be stopping all those fish from peeing in the water too...
The Thames Tideway project, which deals with nearly all of the problem in London is due to be tunnel complete next year and fully in operation in 2025.
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?
Sometimes the person doesn't know they are committing adultery.
They don't know the other person is married.
Or they don’t know they are married;
[Spoilers for Casablanca]
Remember the Paris sequence in Casablanca. She thought she was a widow and only found out that her husband was still alive the day she was supposed to leave with Rick.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
Though we don't hear so much about the Church (i.e. no Catholics) these days for some reason.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
Just one last thought on the raw sewage debacle; apologies for posting on this again. It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
Someone on here recommended The Last Battle as a good film. On starting to watch it I've realised that the battle referred to, to get access to Antwerp, was the battle that my grandfather died in. He was a marine fighting in the attack on the Walcheren island.
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
I picture HYUFD sitting at his keyboard wearing a powdered wig.
Buggered if I'm going to help carry his sedan chair though....
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
Though we don't hear so much about the Church (i.e. no Catholics) these days for some reason.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The Tories are a broader church as far as religion goes now, we had our first Catholic leader in IDS in 2001 and now have our second in Boris, the first Catholic PM in office, JRM is Roman Catholic as well. The Tories even won Catholics in 2019 even though Corbyn won them in 2017.
However our core vote still remains Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals who the Tories won in 2017 and 2019. Jews also now vote Tory when they used to vote Labour with Howard in 2003 the first practicing Jewish Tory leader.
Muslims and atheists however tend to be part of Labour's core vote, Corbyn won them in both 2017 and 2019
Just one last thought on the raw sewage debacle; apologies for posting on this again. It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
I think you're right about the costal thing- there are Brexity fishermen who flipped quite a few seats over the last couple of GEs.
It's one of the curious things about this very populist government, though. They seem to have ears of tin and feet of lead for this sort of thing. (We saw something similar with the not-school lunches last year.)
An issue comes up, the opposition make hay with it, the government tries to be strong, backbenchers go over the top to defend the indefensible, then a few days later the government climbs down. But at least some people will remember the bit where the government said it would do something awful.
Like you say, poor politics, and it seems to be something habitual or structural.
Just one last thought on the raw sewage debacle; apologies for posting on this again. It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
I think you're right about the costal thing- there are Brexity fishermen who flipped quite a few seats over the last couple of GEs.
It's one of the curious things about this very populist government, though. They seem to have ears of tin and feet of lead for this sort of thing. (We saw something similar with the not-school lunches last year.)
An issue comes up, the opposition make hay with it, the government tries to be strong, backbenchers go over the top to defend the indefensible, then a few days later the government climbs down. But at least some people will remember the bit where the government said it would do something awful.
Like you say, poor politics, and it seems to be something habitual or structural.
If they are looking for advice, I would charge pretty reasonable rates for suggesting raw sewage discharge may prove not to be overly popular.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
I picture HYUFD sitting at his keyboard wearing a powdered wig.
Just one last thought on the raw sewage debacle; apologies for posting on this again. It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
I think you're right about the costal thing- there are Brexity fishermen who flipped quite a few seats over the last couple of GEs.
It's one of the curious things about this very populist government, though. They seem to have ears of tin and feet of lead for this sort of thing. (We saw something similar with the not-school lunches last year.)
An issue comes up, the opposition make hay with it, the government tries to be strong, backbenchers go over the top to defend the indefensible, then a few days later the government climbs down. But at least some people will remember the bit where the government said it would do something awful.
Like you say, poor politics, and it seems to be something habitual or structural.
Just one last thought on the raw sewage debacle; apologies for posting on this again. It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
I think you're right about the costal thing- there are Brexity fishermen who flipped quite a few seats over the last couple of GEs.
It's one of the curious things about this very populist government, though. They seem to have ears of tin and feet of lead for this sort of thing. (We saw something similar with the not-school lunches last year.)
An issue comes up, the opposition make hay with it, the government tries to be strong, backbenchers go over the top to defend the indefensible, then a few days later the government climbs down. But at least some people will remember the bit where the government said it would do something awful.
Like you say, poor politics, and it seems to be something habitual or structural.
I think the reflex is to dismiss an issue as Twitter bubble if a. It appears mainly on social media, b. The people shouting most loudly about it are what they perceive as the metropolitan remoaners. It blinds them to the salience of the actual issue at hand. Hence they get it right sometimes, and woefully wrong at other times.
Shit being dumped in the sea is such a physical, tangible, easily imagined thing it’s the perfect environmental cause célèbre. It’s also easy to compare the UK unfavourably with our neighbours. It’s up there with peat cutting or paving over wetlands in the visible despoiling stakes. The kind of thing there can never be too much noise made about, because there is no such thing as too little water pollution.
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 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.
Yep. 49 hours straight into a harbour in Hampshire. Nearly 1000 hours into the Thames last year. It's no use saying it always happened. Folk don't know that. And they think it stinks. Which it does.
So time to do something about it. I did hear that there was a clause that woul£ make the water companies responsible for what others might put into the rivers, which seemed odd. I have problem with ratcheting up the pressure get cleaner rivers and seas. Although we won’t be stopping all those fish from peeing in the water too...
On the others bit, I haven't read it but suspect it was to prevent the water companies simply outsourcing to acme sewage Co who might have questionable practices and therefore avoiding direct liability themselves. May have been badly drafted to catch other eventualities. It wouldn't be the first time...
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
Though we don't hear so much about the Church (i.e. no Catholics) these days for some reason.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The Tories are a broader church as far as religion goes now, we had our first Catholic leader in IDS in 2001 and now have our second in Boris, the first Catholic PM in office, JRM is Roman Catholic as well. The Tories even won Catholics in 2019 even though Corbyn won them in 2017.
However our core vote still remains Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals who the Tories won in 2017 and 2019. Jews also now vote Tory when they used to vote Labour with Howard in 2003 the first practicing Jewish Tory leader.
Muslims and atheists however tend to be part of Labour's core vote, Corbyn won them in both 2017 and 2019
So are Catholic Atheists more Labour leaning than Protestant Atheists?
Thank Christ that we are not a nation where religion is not a strong indicator of voting intention.
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?
Not necessarily.
Adultery is sleeping with someone who is not your spouse, no? The person one commits adultery with - assuming they are not married - is not committing adultery.
Likewise, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
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?
Not necessarily.
Adultery is sleeping with someone who is not your spouse, no? The person one commits adultery with - assuming they are not married - is not committing adultery.
Likewise, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
It's not adultery if [...legal notice: some words removed...], like Andrew
And was HRH the Prince of Wales’s work marked anonymously?
I would be amazed if any Royal's work was marked anonymously. I expect their grade is boosted by at least one.
I'd be more concerned about the anonymity of the marker, after giving a score of 2:2. That sort of thing [...legal notice: some words removed...] Parisian tunnel.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
Though we don't hear so much about the Church (i.e. no Catholics) these days for some reason.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The Tories are a broader church as far as religion goes now, we had our first Catholic leader in IDS in 2001 and now have our second in Boris, the first Catholic PM in office, JRM is Roman Catholic as well. The Tories even won Catholics in 2019 even though Corbyn won them in 2017.
However our core vote still remains Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals who the Tories won in 2017 and 2019. Jews also now vote Tory when they used to vote Labour with Howard in 2003 the first practicing Jewish Tory leader.
Muslims and atheists however tend to be part of Labour's core vote, Corbyn won them in both 2017 and 2019
So are Catholic Atheists more Labour leaning than Protestant Atheists?
Thank Christ that we are not a nation where religion is not a strong indicator of voting intention.
I would imagine Catholic heritage atheists and agnostics are more Labour or SNP leaning than Protestant heritage atheists and agnostics yes, especially as the former will more often come from Labour leaning areas like Liverpool, Salford, inner London, Birmingham and SNP leaning and formerly Labour leaning areas like Paisley and Glasgow
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
Though we don't hear so much about the Church (i.e. no Catholics) these days for some reason.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The Tories are a broader church as far as religion goes now, we had our first Catholic leader in IDS in 2001 and now have our second in Boris, the first Catholic PM in office, JRM is Roman Catholic as well. The Tories even won Catholics in 2019 even though Corbyn won them in 2017.
However our core vote still remains Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals who the Tories won in 2017 and 2019. Jews also now vote Tory when they used to vote Labour with Howard in 2003 the first practicing Jewish Tory leader.
Muslims and atheists however tend to be part of Labour's core vote, Corbyn won them in both 2017 and 2019
So are Catholic Atheists more Labour leaning than Protestant Atheists?
Thank Christ that we are not a nation where religion is not a strong indicator of voting intention.
I would imagine Catholic atheists and agnostics are more Labour or SNP leaning than Protestant atheists and agnostics yes, especially as the former will more often come from Labour leaning areas like Liverpool, inner London, Birmingham and Glasgow
24.3% in the Glasgow regional list in the 2021 election
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
Though we don't hear so much about the Church (i.e. no Catholics) these days for some reason.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The Tories are a broader church as far as religion goes now, we had our first Catholic leader in IDS in 2001 and now have our second in Boris, the first Catholic PM in office, JRM is Roman Catholic as well. The Tories even won Catholics in 2019 even though Corbyn won them in 2017.
However our core vote still remains Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals who the Tories won in 2017 and 2019. Jews also now vote Tory when they used to vote Labour with Howard in 2003 the first practicing Jewish Tory leader.
Muslims and atheists however tend to be part of Labour's core vote, Corbyn won them in both 2017 and 2019
So are Catholic Atheists more Labour leaning than Protestant Atheists?
Thank Christ that we are not a nation where religion is not a strong indicator of voting intention.
I would imagine Catholic heritage atheists and agnostics are more Labour or SNP leaning than Protestant heritage atheists and agnostics yes, especially as the former will more often come from Labour leaning areas like Liverpool, Salford, inner London, Birmingham and Glasgow
Or are they more Labour leaning because they have more Catholic heritage voters? Chicken and egg.
Just one last thought on the raw sewage debacle; apologies for posting on this again. It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
I think you're right about the costal thing- there are Brexity fishermen who flipped quite a few seats over the last couple of GEs.
It's one of the curious things about this very populist government, though. They seem to have ears of tin and feet of lead for this sort of thing. (We saw something similar with the not-school lunches last year.)
An issue comes up, the opposition make hay with it, the government tries to be strong, backbenchers go over the top to defend the indefensible, then a few days later the government climbs down. But at least some people will remember the bit where the government said it would do something awful.
Like you say, poor politics, and it seems to be something habitual or structural.
I think the reflex is to dismiss an issue as Twitter bubble if a. It appears mainly on social media, b. The people shouting most loudly about it are what they perceive as the metropolitan remoaners. It blinds them to the salience of the actual issue at hand. Hence they get it right sometimes, and woefully wrong at other times.
Shit being dumped in the sea is such a physical, tangible, easily imagined thing it’s the perfect environmental cause célèbre. It’s also easy to compare the UK unfavourably with our neighbours. It’s up there with peat cutting or paving over wetlands in the visible despoiling stakes. The kind of thing there can never be too much noise made about, because there is no such thing as too little water pollution.
It's causing a noticeable stir on Nextdoor, the least political of social media (a typical post is "I saw a stray dog with a green collar, might it be yours?") - lots of people asking how come Hunt abstained, why isn't he referring to it in his constituency emails? We're a long way from the sea, but people worry about rivers too.
There are two levels to it. The not very political just think "the Government wants to let big companies dump shit in the sea? Yuck, probably it's their mates". The more political follow both the government argument that the companies would put prices up to pay for better practice, but also the opposition argument that they shouldn't have been left to pay fat dividends earlier and then run to the Government or consumers for a bailout. Same as as rail and energy companies.
Nationalising natural monopolies used to be accepted wisdom - even my Tory parents felt that of course it makes sense. If they're run badly, you can change the government, but how do you change Southern Water? Almost nobody wants to nationalise something with genuine competition like Rice Krispies, but the case against monopolies makes itself.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
I applaud the pinhead dancing. The monarchy is a generic lottery. That’s it. If we have “a really bad monarch” Parliament can theoretically force them to abdicate in the hope that the next person on the fruit machine is a bowl of cherries. Fab!
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
If Charles interferes in politics sufficiently in the way that some Republicans hope will aid their cause I would expect him to be forced to abdicate to avoid that outcome.
If he knuckles down and plays along then we'd be set for a succession of elderly monarchs, which I don't think is necessarily a problem in itself. There will always be a youngest generation to play its part.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
If Charles interferes in politics sufficiently in the way that some Republicans hope will aid their cause I would expect him to be forced to abdicate to avoid that outcome.
If he knuckles down and plays along then we'd be set for a succession of elderly monarchs, which I don't think is necessarily a problem in itself. There will always be a youngest generation to play its part.
I’m actually relatively sanguine about having a monarchy, I find the contortions monarchists have to adopt to defend the system so amusing it would be a shame to lose it.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
If Charles interferes in politics sufficiently in the way that some Republicans hope will aid their cause I would expect him to be forced to abdicate to avoid that outcome.
If he knuckles down and plays along then we'd be set for a succession of elderly monarchs, which I don't think is necessarily a problem in itself. There will always be a youngest generation to play its part.
I’m actually relatively sanguine about having a monarchy, I find the contortions monarchists have to adopt to defend the system so amusing it would be a shame to lose it.
I'd like us to get rid of the monarchy but quite frankly there's far many more serious issues to worry about that I'm content not rock the boat on that.
If Charles causes issues then we can readdress that then. Otherwise I'd far rather issues like housing, taxes etc get tackled.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
I applaud the pinhead dancing. The monarchy is a generic lottery. That’s it. If we have “a really bad monarch” Parliament can theoretically force them to abdicate in the hope that the next person on the fruit machine is a bowl of cherries. Fab!
You misunderstand. I am no Monarchist.
I'm just trying to explain to my fellow Republicans that waiting until there's an unpopular Monarch is a losing strategy, because we don't live under an inflexible absolute monarchy, but a flexible constitutional monarchy that's already managed to deal with inadequate/unpopular/dangerous monarchs.
It's not the case that the country is at the mercy of a generic lottery because the succession is determined by Statute Law, and is therefore capable of being amended (as it was recently with the effect of putting Charlotte ahead of Louis in the line of succession).
It's the institution of monarchy that monarchists are principally loyal to. Any individual monarch can be dispensed with if they threaten the institution.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
If Charles interferes in politics sufficiently in the way that some Republicans hope will aid their cause I would expect him to be forced to abdicate to avoid that outcome.
If he knuckles down and plays along then we'd be set for a succession of elderly monarchs, which I don't think is necessarily a problem in itself. There will always be a youngest generation to play its part.
I’m actually relatively sanguine about having a monarchy, I find the contortions monarchists have to adopt to defend the system so amusing it would be a shame to lose it.
I'd like us to get rid of the monarchy but quite frankly there's far many more serious issues to worry about that I'm content not rock the boat on that.
If Charles causes issues then we can readdress that then. Otherwise I'd far rather issues like housing, taxes etc get tackled.
I’m of a similar view. In a referendum I’d vote against it but it comes so far down my list of priorities it’s barely worth thinking about. I do find monarchists’ attempts to rationalise it entertaining though.
Meanwhile I'd love to see the SEIR model that supports Finn's view here
If you boost people before they need the vaccine, it could "actually run the risk of making things worse rather than better", warns Professor Adam Finn, a member of the JCVI Committee.
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?
Not necessarily.
Adultery is sleeping with someone who is not your spouse, no? The person one commits adultery with - assuming they are not married - is not committing adultery.
Likewise, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
Hah. Not sure this err.. technicality would wash with my other half
Do think he got to Cambridge on his ability or his connections?
Charles did 6 weeks at BRNC and was commissioned in the FAA. Aircrew and Warfare officers normally do a 49 week course. Even the 'Vicars and Tarts' short course is 30 weeks. I am sure that was entirely on merit too.
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
1950? He seems to view the Conservatives as the Tory Party of landed gentry, church and state of 1750.
The Tory Party of 1750 accepted the results of elections.
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.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
The rules of succession are a social construct, they only exist to create an unambiguous schelling point. If we're all ready for the passing of Queen Elizabeth with our "long live Queen Judy Dench" tweets there's no need for any of this Charles business.
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.
Interestingly that isn’t correct. William II Rufus, for example, was the second son of William the Conqueror. Stephen was elected by the barons in default of a male heir to Henry I.
It wasn’t until the reign of Edward III that succession was formalised as male-line primogeniture, and that was as much as anything a response to the French Salic Law designed to freeze him out of succession to the French throne when the House of Capet died out.
Ironically, this supposed settling of the constitutional question was then to cause endless trouble during the Wars of the Roses in both 1460 and 1483. To the extent that Henry VIII, lacking a male heir, actually repealed it and said he had the right to nominate his successor. A power ultimately used by Elizabeth I to nominate James even though the Grey family arguably had a better claim on paper.
Subsequently monarchs were elected in 1688 and in 1714 setting aside the claims of direct primogeniture.
It wasn’t until the Act of Settlement was first used on the latter date that primogeniture became the actual law.
The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain, by Ian Mortimer, is 'set' in the time of Charles II and well worth a read. It's impressive how the king managed to have so many children, yet not one of them was a legitimate heir (I believe one or two might have been lost, alas, but the survivors were all bastards).
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.
Interestingly that isn’t correct. William II Rufus, for example, was the second son of William the Conqueror. Stephen was elected by the barons in default of a male heir to Henry I.
It wasn’t until the reign of Edward III that succession was formalised as male-line primogeniture, and that was as much as anything a response to the French Salic Law designed to freeze him out of succession to the French throne when the House of Capet died out.
Ironically, this supposed settling of the constitutional question was then to cause endless trouble during the Wars of the Roses in both 1460 and 1483. To the extent that Henry VIII, lacking a male heir, actually repealed it and said he had the right to nominate his successor. A power ultimately used by Elizabeth I to nominate James even though the Grey family arguably had a better claim on paper.
Subsequently monarchs were elected in 1688 and in 1714 setting aside the claims of direct primogeniture.
It wasn’t until the Act of Settlement was first used on the latter date that primogeniture became the actual law.
Wasn't there a 'situation' around Wars of the Roses time when there was considerable doubt over whether a son of the Queen had actually been fathered by the King?
And who would have been King in 1688 if James II (IIRC) hadn't become monarch?
And Good Morning one and all. Although OKC is feeling his age somewhat today, having had a 'small' fall yesterday.
The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain, by Ian Mortimer, is 'set' in the time of Charles II and well worth a read. It's impressive how the king managed to have so many children, yet not one of them was a legitimate heir (I believe one or two might have been lost, alas, but the survivors were all bastards).
Comments
I think we should bring back the nicknames. We've had Longshanks, Ironside, The Unready. Let's bring that back.
The French did it too. We had Charles the Hammer, so let's have our very own tribute to that... Charles the Spanner.
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
Absolute unalloyed joy.
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
Forty two per cent of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30 per cent opposed it, and 28 per cent did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58 per cent wanted a ballot on the issue.
The survey showed that of those who expressed a preference, more than 50 per cent of each category polled supported a referendum on net zero. This included 18- to 24-year-olds, middle class voters, Londoners, Remainers, both men and women, and Liberal Democrat backers....
....The polling was commissioned by Car26.org, a new campaign group calling for a referendum on net zero proposals and a pause in eco regulations until such a ballot is held.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/26/britons-want-referendum-no-10s-net-zero-plans-next-general-election/
They don't know the other person is married.
This is the serious reason behind my excitable iconoclasm this evening. We need to get used to imagining these people as venal, stupid, selfish, and corrupt, because there's a strong risk of unchecked ("soft") power falling into the wrong hands. Better to tear down the institution completely; it does nothing for us. But falling short of that, let's assume they're as likely to be worthless tossers as they are paragons of virtue. Just like everyone else.
However, the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and their children would all have to die in Andrew's lifetime for him to become King so the chances are near 0%
HS2 under fire for buying French steel
Rail project says Sendin was selected after contract with UK supplier fell through even though French standards do not meet UK requirements
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/26/hs2-fire-buying-french-steel/
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/15/magazine/adultery-and-fraternization.html
Apparently only adulterer (under old definitions at least) if involving a married woman. With married man just fornication. Due to adultery requiring adulteration of the blood line.
49 hours straight into a harbour in Hampshire.
Nearly 1000 hours into the Thames last year.
It's no use saying it always happened. Folk don't know that. And they think it stinks. Which it does.
Although we won’t be stopping all those fish from peeing in the water too...
Though one thing is that going forwards the monarchy could quite possibly always be a gerontocracy. Charles is already past retirement age and if he lives as long as either of his parents, then William would be at or close to it too by then.
[Spoilers for Casablanca]
Remember the Paris sequence in Casablanca. She thought she was a widow and only found out that her husband was still alive the day she was supposed to leave with Rick.
More importantly, "go and join the other lot then" was the slogan of a certain type of Jez-loyalist; it's not a healthy sign in a political party.
The over sixties will vote to burn the planet rather than be inconvenienced.
Peston
@itvpeston
After #Budget2021 sets out the future for the British economy, Chancellor @RishiSunak will speak to
@Peston
An unmissable interview tomorrow Downwards arrow
Television 𝟭𝟬𝟰𝟱 𝗣𝗠
@itv
#peston
===
Translation: At 1045pm the Chancellor will remind people what he reminded the House of Commons at 12:30 he had told Marr on Sunday.
It strikes me that the communities most affected, and pissed off, by the discharge of raw sewage into the sea are coastal communities. And although I haven't done the analysis, I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those coastal communities have Tory MPs; some by slender margins. Very poor politics by the Tories.
Sky News: https://news.sky.com/story/many-people-are-confused-by-and-distrust-climate-change-information-poll-suggests-12445141
However our core vote still remains Anglicans and Protestant evangelicals who the Tories won in 2017 and 2019. Jews also now vote Tory when they used to vote Labour with Howard in 2003 the first practicing Jewish Tory leader.
Muslims and atheists however tend to be part of Labour's core vote, Corbyn won them in both 2017 and 2019
It's one of the curious things about this very populist government, though. They seem to have ears of tin and feet of lead for this sort of thing. (We saw something similar with the not-school lunches last year.)
An issue comes up, the opposition make hay with it, the government tries to be strong, backbenchers go over the top to defend the indefensible, then a few days later the government climbs down. But at least some people will remember the bit where the government said it would do something awful.
Like you say, poor politics, and it seems to be something habitual or structural.
Shit being dumped in the sea is such a physical, tangible, easily imagined thing it’s the perfect environmental cause célèbre. It’s also easy to compare the UK unfavourably with our neighbours. It’s up there with peat cutting or paving over wetlands in the visible despoiling stakes. The kind of thing there can never be too much noise made about, because there is no such thing as too little water pollution.
Thank Christ that we are not a nation where religion is not a strong indicator of voting intention.
Adultery is sleeping with someone who is not your spouse, no? The person one commits adultery with - assuming they are not married - is not committing adultery.
Likewise, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
I expect their grade is boosted by at least one.
There are two levels to it. The not very political just think "the Government wants to let big companies dump shit in the sea? Yuck, probably it's their mates". The more political follow both the government argument that the companies would put prices up to pay for better practice, but also the opposition argument that they shouldn't have been left to pay fat dividends earlier and then run to the Government or consumers for a bailout. Same as as rail and energy companies.
Nationalising natural monopolies used to be accepted wisdom - even my Tory parents felt that of course it makes sense. If they're run badly, you can change the government, but how do you change Southern Water? Almost nobody wants to nationalise something with genuine competition like Rice Krispies, but the case against monopolies makes itself.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
If he knuckles down and plays along then we'd be set for a succession of elderly monarchs, which I don't think is necessarily a problem in itself. There will always be a youngest generation to play its part.
If Charles causes issues then we can readdress that then. Otherwise I'd far rather issues like housing, taxes etc get tackled.
I'm just trying to explain to my fellow Republicans that waiting until there's an unpopular Monarch is a losing strategy, because we don't live under an inflexible absolute monarchy, but a flexible constitutional monarchy that's already managed to deal with inadequate/unpopular/dangerous monarchs.
It's not the case that the country is at the mercy of a generic lottery because the succession is determined by Statute Law, and is therefore capable of being amended (as it was recently with the effect of putting Charlotte ahead of Louis in the line of succession).
It's the institution of monarchy that monarchists are principally loyal to. Any individual monarch can be dispensed with if they threaten the institution.
FDA advisers voted 17-0 (1 abstain) in favor of authorization of the Pfizer #covid19 #vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds.
If you boost people before they need the vaccine, it could "actually run the risk of making things worse rather than better", warns Professor Adam Finn, a member of the JCVI Committee.
> aardvark
> barfbag
> catamite
> dingleberry
> earwax
> flint dildo
> gigolo
> hermaphrodite
> ipetigo
> jockstrap
> lickspittal
> monkeynuts
> necrophiliac
> orifice
> pee-pee
> Quasimodo
> rump roast
> sex machine
> toaster oven
> urinal
> vampire
> wangdoodle
> xylophone
> yahoo
> zither
It wasn’t until the reign of Edward III that succession was formalised as male-line primogeniture, and that was as much as anything a response to the French Salic Law designed to freeze him out of succession to the French throne when the House of Capet died out.
Ironically, this supposed settling of the constitutional question was then to cause endless trouble during the Wars of the Roses in both 1460 and 1483. To the extent that Henry VIII, lacking a male heir, actually repealed it and said he had the right to nominate his successor. A power ultimately used by Elizabeth I to nominate James even though the Grey family arguably had a better claim on paper.
Subsequently monarchs were elected in 1688 and in 1714 setting aside the claims of direct primogeniture.
It wasn’t until the Act of Settlement was first used on the latter date that primogeniture became the actual law.
The Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration Britain, by Ian Mortimer, is 'set' in the time of Charles II and well worth a read. It's impressive how the king managed to have so many children, yet not one of them was a legitimate heir (I believe one or two might have been lost, alas, but the survivors were all bastards).
And who would have been King in 1688 if James II (IIRC) hadn't become monarch?
And Good Morning one and all. Although OKC is feeling his age somewhat today, having had a 'small' fall yesterday.