Howdy, Stranger!

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

Betting on a Conservative poll lead before the first of March – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    Fuck me.

    DUP MLA Christopher Stalford dies aged 39
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-60451845

    That's really shocking.
  • NEW THREAD

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    I’m worried for our Queen ☹️ She’s already looking so much more fragile since she lost her husband.

    One of our neighbours made a dramatic decline in frailty between her 89th and 90th birthdays. Perhaps what was so remarkable was how vital she had still been at 89. A decade's worth of ageing suddenly caught up.
    It’s how it tends to happen doesn’t it? Like a clock running out of tick tock 😕
    Sadly I fear that my mother, who turned 90 last autumn, is now finding the same.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    There are going to be some choice “hot takes”

    For anyone keeping track of what Boris Johnson has done to the Queen:

    🔻 Lied to her
    🔻 Implicated her in illegally shutting Parliament
    🔻 Made her sit alone at her husband's funeral while his office were hungover
    🔻 Scrapped covid restrictions and 3 weeks later she gets Covid


    https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1495367783122714630

    For the past year or so, I'd say that Johnson, for all his faults, has made the right calls on COVID. Perhaps that was just luck, but then, it's good to be lucky.
    Ever since we found that we had effective vaccines the decisions have been rather obvious, though. Vaccinate as many people as possible, particularly those most at risk, as quickly as possible, and then enjoy the result of the vaccine ending the public health emergency.

    What's surprising is that so many people have found it so difficult to make the mental adjustment that the vaccine really does reduce the risk sufficiently that the emergency is over.
    On @Malmesbury figures an over 85 year old with covid has a 25%+ chance of hospital admission, about 10% mortality.
    Less than that (at least for deaths) - because the current numbers are on descent and the lag.

    Looking at peaks, the numbers for the 85+ seem to line up as

    Cases Peak -> Admissions peak 11 days later -> Deaths peak 20 days later

    Which give us Case/Admission Ratio of 4-5
    and a Case/Fatality Ratio of 15-19
    Though have to allow that HM is 95 not 85, so those figures might underestimate.
    For deaths we have data segmented to 90+ and cases to match

    Looks like 14-17 CFR for 90+
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,829
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Johnson will lead the Tories into the next election.

    I did wonder about this given his own seat
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, I posted this yesterday but Michelle O'Neill's interview with Sky News is interesting. She's urging the Irish Government to prepare for a united Ireland.

    Ever since Boris Johnson threw the north under his Brexit bus, the dye was cast for a united Ireland. It's just a question of when.

    Which raises the intriguing prospect for rejoiners who wish to be EU citizens that if they live in the north then even without Irish ancestry they might be carried back into the EU.

    https://news.sky.com/story/sinn-fein-deputy-leader-michelle-oneill-urges-irish-government-to-prepare-for-a-united-ireland-12545895

    I don't think that's terribly surprising or interesting
    The difference now is that there's a fair chance she is about to become first minister.

    If you don't find the current situation in Northern Ireland interesting then fair enough but most people who have studied the province and its troubles for the past 70 years will not agree with you. And the prospect of a Sinn Fein first minister is ... well, wow.

    The latest Northern Ireland Stormont polling has SF on just 23% ie clearly below the 27% they got in 2017. The only reason they might come first is the DUP have fallen even further from 28% in 2017 to 19% now as they have leaked votes to TUV, who are still on 6% despite a small DUP recovery from their nadir of 13% last summer.

    The combined Unionist vote of the DUP, UUP and TUV however is 39% still clearly ahead of the combined Nationalist vote of SF and SDLP of 32%. So the Unionists will still comfortably win most MLAs under the PR STV system Stormont uses and vote down a border poll
    https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2022/02/14/news/new-opinion-poll-puts-sinn-fe-in-in-pole-position-2588053/
    The big winner is Alliance who are only 4% behind the DUP now and Sinn Fein looks to have stabilised around 23% even though that's 4% down on last time.
    It would be wonderful if the DUP came third given their recent behaviour although I don't expect that to happen.
    It could well be Alliance voters that have the deciding votes on whether there is a border poll, and the result of the poll. Have there been any NI opinion polls indicating how they would vote?
    It does not matter as the Alliance leadership have already made clear they oppose a border poll at the moment
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/no-current-case-for-united-ireland-border-poll-alliance-party-1.4196502
    'At the moment' being 2 years ago. Anything more recent?
    Nothing.

    As long as Unionist parties win more seats than Nationalists at Stormont there is zero chance of the Alliance supporting a border poll and the NI Secretary will also therefore correctly refuse a border poll too.

    If Boris does invoke Article 16 and the GFA collapses as SF and the DUP refuse to share power then arguably the Tory NI Secretary can then refuse a border poll outright anyway, regardless of what happens at Stormont, exactly as the Tory UK government will continue to refuse indyref2 whatever support it has at Holyrood
    Last time we looked, the Alliance weren't supporting a border poll, BUT were open to the idea.

    Not zero chance, therefore. And just let Mr Johnson mess things up some more, no?
  • HYUFD said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    I've just had an appalling thought.

    Boris Johnson is going to muscle his way on to the Regency Council isn't he?

    He's not going to sit idly by whilst Sir Lindsay Hoyle and Dominic Raab whilst Raab take part?

    I think a regency with the Queen semi-retired but still doing a little oversight as she sees fit is more likely than an abdication, but any attempt to politicise such a handover could just possibly force the latter.

    How would 'gave the Queen no choice but to abdicate' sit on Boris's CV?
    George VIth was Prince Regent for George IIIrd as Prince of Wales for 9 years, almost as long as the 10 years he was King.

    Not necessarily a great precedent for Charles if as Prince of Wales he ends up Prince Regent for the Queen
    Prince George was Prince Regent, not George VIth!!!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,829
    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582

    dixiedean said:

    What is Putin getting out of it?

    Firstly he's damaged the Ukrainian economy and reminded them that their freedom from Moscow comes at a price - the threat of military action. He's also helped to prop up mini me Lukashenko who's been under pressure from protesters who believe that he rigged the 2020 election.

    He's de facto annexed Belarus while everyone was looking at Ukraine.
    That's actually a good point - and one that will give Putin some nice Brownie Points with the Greater Russian Nationalists.

    Could it be enough for the climb down? My guess is that it isn't, sadly.
    Surely Belarus was already all-but annexed.
    Pretty much. but each step will make the Greater Russian Nationalists feel a warmth in their hearts. Nothing like getting Kyiv, of course.
    Or Kiev even :)
    Putin is going to HAVE to invade, if only for the certainty of ever after being taunted as the Kiev Chicken.....
    Which tabloid is going to send the office junior chasing Putin around in a chicken suit… and how long would they last in the role?
    Watching John Oliver explain gleefully to his mostly American audience, that in Britian we actually send people dressed as chickens to follow politicians around for weeks on end, was very funny indeed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    Yes, William apparently turned up to meet Her Majestsy with his whole family in a ‘copter he was flying himself, and granny made the point that that was a rather bad idea. He’s now not allowed to travel with his kids any more, and not allowed to fly helicopters himself.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,148

    I do wonder if NATO members will pile in for a massive co-ordinated cyber "response" to that the moment the tanks cross into Ukraine.
    How many NATO members are capable of such a response?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    William was only able to become King by ruling jointly with James IInds daughter Mary and they were succeeded by one of James' other daughters, Queen Anne
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    Though if that happens. Harry would then be next in line after Charles, not Andrew
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,931
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    Though if that happens. Harry would then be next in line after Charles, not Andrew
    What would happen if Harry refused the Crown?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    Though if that happens. Harry would then be next in line after Charles, not Andrew
    What would happen if Harry refused the Crown?
    He wouldn't, he only went to California as he did not see a future as the spare, if he became the heir it would be back on
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    A better argument from that point of view would actually be the Act of Settlement, which excluded practically every senior royal and settled the succession on a very junior branch - because they were Protestants.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    William was only able to become King by ruling jointly with James IInds daughter Mary and they were succeeded by one of James' other daughters, Queen Anne
    Yes, but the point being they didn't have to make him King at all, even with her being Queen. They chose to.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    William was only able to become King by ruling jointly with James IInds daughter Mary and they were succeeded by one of James' other daughters, Queen Anne
    Yes, but the point being they didn't have to make him King at all, even with her being Queen. They chose to.
    I don't think they exactly had much choice. Mary refused to rule without him, and he refused to stay in the country unless he was declared King in his own right. And if he had left, James would in all probability have successfully resumed the throne.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    William was only able to become King by ruling jointly with James IInds daughter Mary and they were succeeded by one of James' other daughters, Queen Anne
    Yes, but the point being they didn't have to make him King at all, even with her being Queen. They chose to.
    I don't think they exactly had much choice. Mary refused to rule without him, and he refused to stay in the country unless he was declared King in his own right. And if he had left, James would in all probability have successfully resumed the throne.
    That just proves the point about it not being divine even to them though, and so certainly not to us. They felt politically they needed her, and her view made it an easy choice, but still a choice.
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    William was only able to become King by ruling jointly with James IInds daughter Mary and they were succeeded by one of James' other daughters, Queen Anne
    Yes, but the point being they didn't have to make him King at all, even with her being Queen. They chose to.
    I don't think they exactly had much choice. Mary refused to rule without him, and he refused to stay in the country unless he was declared King in his own right. And if he had left, James would in all probability have successfully resumed the throne.
    That just proves the point about it not being divine even to them though, and so certainly not to us. They felt politically they needed her, and her view made it an easy choice, but still a choice.
    Divine Right and In Direct Male Line of Succession mean different things. Once anointed, you have Divine Right, if you believe such things. And don't forget he was a grandson of Charles I.

    As a bit of historical whataboutery, I always wonder what would have happened if Prince Rupert had married and had legitimate offspring. He was Sophia's older brother.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Are we entering a point where we need to start thinking about a possible regency?

    The informal regency has been happening for a while, with Charles and William assuming more and more duties. The problem is the two black sheep who are the next adults in line.
    They're exiled from the Firm, and the succession is secure. The monarchy only starts to get into serious bother if William's whole family meets with an unfortunate accident, which is why I believe HMQ has forbidden him from flying them anywhere himself.
    It would be the Prince of Wales, plus the next four in line aged over 18 as counsellors of state.

    An elegant solution might be to cut the number to three and promote Camilla and Catherine to counsellors of state, should it be needed.
    No. Not part of the bloodline touched by Divine Right.

    Else why bother with the mystique of royalty?
    Nothing divine about the royal line even if there is annointing going on once selected - William III being invited made that pretty clear, since it was not necessary even if you excluded the catholics.
    William was only able to become King by ruling jointly with James IInds daughter Mary and they were succeeded by one of James' other daughters, Queen Anne
    Yes, but the point being they didn't have to make him King at all, even with her being Queen. They chose to.
    I don't think they exactly had much choice. Mary refused to rule without him, and he refused to stay in the country unless he was declared King in his own right. And if he had left, James would in all probability have successfully resumed the throne.
    That just proves the point about it not being divine even to them though, and so certainly not to us. They felt politically they needed her, and her view made it an easy choice, but still a choice.
    Divine Right and In Direct Male Line of Succession mean different things. Once anointed, you have Divine Right, if you believe such things. And don't forget he was a grandson of Charles I.

    As a bit of historical whataboutery, I always wonder what would have happened if Prince Rupert had married and had legitimate offspring. He was Sophia's older brother.
    Well I'm not about to argue the details with a man such as yourself who was there for many of the preceding events.
This discussion has been closed.