I wonder whether Douglas Carswell will stay with UKIP once the referendum has been held. He doesn't seem to have much in common with most of the UKIP senior figures other than a desire for the UK to leave the EU, and recently he seems to have stopped bothering to conceal his irritation at some of their words and actions. He seems more like an interesting independent, with often original and thought-provoking ideas, than a party figure.
Do you think he'd hold his seat as an independent? His majority isn't huge.
I wonder whether Douglas Carswell will stay with UKIP once the referendum has been held. He doesn't seem to have much in common with most of the UKIP senior figures other than a desire for the UK to leave the EU, and recently he seems to have stopped bothering to conceal his irritation at some of their words and actions. He seems more like an interesting independent, with often original and thought-provoking ideas, than a party figure.
I reckon Farage must be odds on to jack it in after the ref.. if so, then Carswell could stay and influence the successor perhaps?
I see him exactly as you describe in your last sentence... I'd quite like it if UKIP were a collection of independent minds with a common cause, rather than a whipped party
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
One shouldn't begrudge an old biddy her climaxing.
Nats : cracking up like the bridges they were supposed to be maintaining.
I was just thinking the other day when reading @JosiasJessop and @Dair on the new Forth Bridge and its cost of c 1.4bn, how much of that money could have been found in the money the Labour-LD administrations used to return to Whitehall every year for want of managing their budgets properly.
The new bridge is a big dead squirrel to throw on the table but wasn't the plan to have TWO bridges ?
Build two new ones? Not that I recall. If you mean that they were going to use the old one for some traffic then yes. But you need to recall that some at least of the opposition parties decided that the SNP building the new bridge was an absurd vanity project which was unnecessary because the old bridge would do fine.
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers in the Gyle and elsewhere in Edinburgh live north of the Forth where housing is cheaper. They are going to find it incredibly difficult to get to work and will end up working shorter days.
Before the bridge shut some of the commuter trains from Fife were already not being allowed to open their doors at various stations because of the dangers of overcrowding. There is no spare capacity. The consequences for Edinburgh's shops in the run up to Christmas will be severe as well.
On Friday night the chaos went as far west as Stirling. I had a very difficult journey home and have booked additional accommodation in Edinburgh over the next few weeks. But not everyone can do that.
If maintenance was indeed cut back because of the abolition of the tolls that would be a major scandal. The story may prove to be more complex than that though.
The saviour of the UK economy - Services - is not doing so well in Scotland:
Dougie Adams, senior economic adviser to the EY Scottish ITEM Club, said: “Although Scotland has been impacted by the effects of lower oil prices on North Sea-related activity, weak growth in private services is a major cause of this year’s shortfall in comparison to UK growth.”
At the time of SindyRef there were claims (poo-pooed by the Nats) that uncertainty would lead to lack of or delayed investment - if that was the case, then stirring up continuing uncertainty might not be the smartest move.....
This is lesson 101 in confirmation bias:
Unionists will see this as evidence as to why Scotland needs to remain in the union, and evidence of mismanagement of the economy by the SNP government.
Nationalists will see this as evidence of the consequences of remaining under the jackboot of the British state.
I don't expect much in the way of a meeting of minds.
Cracks in a second vertical steel member have triggered the total closure of the Forth Road Bridge until the New Year at the earliest.
The first member, known as the main span truss end link, was found to be fractured on Tuesday. Now, with the crack discovered on another truss end link, bridge operator Amey’s inspection team is carrying out emergency inspections on all 16 such links.
When corrosion was found in the main suspension cables in 2004 it was ultimately decided it would be uneconomic to replace them, and the Queensferry Crossing was eventually given the go-ahead.
This is due to open next year, after which only coaches and taxis would be allowed on the original crossing. With this in prospect, a major repair programme that would allow the bridge to reopen without further traffic restrictions for less than a year might be hard to justify."
Thanks - sounds interesting but the link isn't working.
Derbyshire is possibly the PCC area most at risk for Labour judging by GE result.
Con 39% Lab 36% UKIP 15% LD 5.5% Greens 2.7%
Nottinghamshire is the opposite
Lab 39 Con 37 UKIP 15
Charles was ahead by almost 20,000 votes. I suspect it will be a similiar result next time. Nevertheless I'll strongly consider giving the Conservative my 2nd pref.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
One shouldn't begrudge an old biddy her climaxing.
Nats : cracking up like the bridges they were supposed to be maintaining.
I was just thinking the other day when reading @JosiasJessop and @Dair on the new Forth Bridge and its cost of c 1.4bn, how much of that money could have been found in the money the Labour-LD administrations used to return to Whitehall every year for want of managing their budgets properly.
The new bridge is a big dead squirrel to throw on the table but wasn't the plan to have TWO bridges ?
Build two new ones? Not that I recall. If you mean that they were going to use the old one for some traffic then yes. But you need to recall that some at least of the opposition parties decided that the SNP building the new bridge was an absurd vanity project which was unnecessary because the old bridge would do fine.
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
Squirrel 2 ?
No the plan was to have two bridges operating in tandem - one new, one old split by traffic types.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
When I used to edit a games magazine, I had a call at 3am from a Canadian advertiser (presumably an adult since he was paying us a few hundred dollars for his ad). I mentioned mildly that he'd woken me up, and he was baffled - "You have different times over there? How come?" Eat your heart out, Galileo.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
TBF it was a throw away comment about 2 decades ago that people slap him around the face with like a day-old haddock
(It was idiotic, mind, and not his finest hour, but you need to be careful about hindsight)
Mr. Royale, wouldn't say I dread it, but I do feel some concern.
He has learnt nothing, and he has forgotten nothing.
He simply can't learn to shut up, and thinks his opinions really matter. That is going to be an issue and I don't expect for a minute he will 'stop' the moment he becomes King.
I expect he will be a national embarassment on the Corbyn-level. The constitution and Commonwealth realms will fall apart faster than you can say Oliver Cromwell.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
When I used to edit a games magazine, I had a call at 3am from a Canadian advertiser (presumably an adult since he was paying us a few hundred dollars for his ad). I mentioned mildly that he'd woken me up, and he was baffled - "You have different times over there? How come?" Eat your heart out, Galileo.
Years ago I remember ringing a hotel in Chicago to book a room - I was paying for the call with my own money - so the first thing I told the lady answering was that I was ringing from London so that she would not put me on endless hold and she asked me if that was "long distance". "I'll say" I replied. "London, England. In Europe". I'm not sure she did quite twig. But I did get a nice room in the end.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
When I used to edit a games magazine, I had a call at 3am from a Canadian advertiser (presumably an adult since he was paying us a few hundred dollars for his ad). I mentioned mildly that he'd woken me up, and he was baffled - "You have different times over there? How come?" Eat your heart out, Galileo.
Particularly odd given that they have different times within Canada!
Derbyshire is possibly the PCC area most at risk for Labour judging by GE result.
Con 39% Lab 36% UKIP 15% LD 5.5% Greens 2.7%
Nottinghamshire is the opposite
Lab 39 Con 37 UKIP 15
Charles was ahead by almost 20,000 votes. I suspect it will be a similiar result next time. Nevertheless I'll strongly consider giving the Conservative my 2nd pref.
Rod Hutton's CV was the strongest of the lot for the job last time imo: https://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/candidates/rod-hutton/ (I gave him 1st pref). Alan Charles OTOH had a job for life as my local Labour councillor.
Doesn't matter who the Labour PCC is methinks they will get the gig.
Once the British army were great pontoon bridge builders, but then they had the men and the equipment. They could still manage to build one over the thames at Hamton Court - I hope - but the Firth of Forth would be beyond them today.
Am wondering if bridging a Cumbrian river or stream is beyond their capabilities.
They managed that in the last floods IIRC, to be fair to them.
There was a picture over the weekend of Pooley Bridge in Cumbria totally collapsed. It's small and old and picturesque and a road I've driven over many many times.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now. But in another sense the 'fault' for the problem is likely to be the cumulative responsibility of all the administrations to date, and this must be so if the fracture is a lifetime loading problem such as a fatigue one though IANAE. You missed the discussion the other day about the likely underlying problem being the increased traffic loading, larger HGVs etc. In which case it is a long-germinating problem which could have been foreseen very long ago (though its exact occurrence cannot be in the nature of such things).
How this translates to the actual result is another matter, which remains to be seen.
I've seen it stated that there was no major inspection of the bridge for about 40 years, but I find that surprising to put it mildly.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
One shouldn't begrudge an old biddy her climaxing.
Nats : cracking up like the bridges they were supposed to be maintaining.
I was just thinking the other day when reading @JosiasJessop and @Dair on the new Forth Bridge and its cost of c 1.4bn, how much of that money could have been found in the money the Labour-LD administrations used to return to Whitehall every year for want of managing their budgets properly.
The new bridge is a big dead squirrel to throw on the table but wasn't the plan to have TWO bridges ?
Build two new ones? Not that I recall. If you mean that they were going to use the old one for some traffic then yes. But you need to recall that some at least of the opposition parties decided that the SNP building the new bridge was an absurd vanity project which was unnecessary because the old bridge would do fine.
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
The plan was to keep the Forth Bridge for public transport, cycling & pedestrians - plans for a second crossing (opposed by Labour) started under the Tories:
The Forth Road Bridge opened in 1964, replacing a centuries-old ferry crossing. Proposals for an additional road crossing at Queensferry were drawn up in the early 1990s, as part of the "Setting Forth" consultation document prepared by the Scottish Office. The plans met stiff opposition from environmentalists and from the [Labour] City of Edinburgh Council on the grounds of the increased traffic. Following the Labour victory in the 1997 general election, the proposals were shelved.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
When I used to edit a games magazine, I had a call at 3am from a Canadian advertiser (presumably an adult since he was paying us a few hundred dollars for his ad). I mentioned mildly that he'd woken me up, and he was baffled - "You have different times over there? How come?" Eat your heart out, Galileo.
Years ago I remember ringing a hotel in Chicago to book a room - I was paying for the call with my own money - so the first thing I told the lady answering was that I was ringing from London so that she would not put me on endless hold and she asked me if that was "long distance". "I'll say" I replied. "London, England. In Europe". I'm not sure she did quite twig. But I did get a nice room in the end.
My wife was in California and a shop assistant told her that she (the assistant) was really impressed that my wife lived in London, England.
Why? "I couldn't live anywhere they didn't speak English"
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
TBF it was a throw away comment about 2 decades ago that people slap him around the face with like a day-old haddock
(It was idiotic, mind, and not his finest hour, but you need to be careful about hindsight)
He is inclined to be ludicrously doe-eyed about the Saudis, beyond what is required for his job.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
Well, it's a feature not a bug of monarchy that you get crap kings.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
One shouldn't begrudge an old biddy her climaxing.
Nats : cracking up like the bridges they were supposed to be maintaining.
I was just thinking the other day when reading @JosiasJessop and @Dair on the new Forth Bridge and its cost of c 1.4bn, how much of that money could have been found in the money the Labour-LD administrations used to return to Whitehall every year for want of managing their budgets properly.
The new bridge is a big dead squirrel to throw on the table but wasn't the plan to have TWO bridges ?
Build two new ones? Not that I recall. If you mean that they were going to use the old one for some traffic then yes. But you need to recall that some at least of the opposition parties decided that the SNP building the new bridge was an absurd vanity project which was unnecessary because the old bridge would do fine.
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
Squirrel 2 ?
No the plan was to have two bridges operating in tandem - one new, one old split by traffic types.
Is that no longer the plan ?
That's exactly what I meant, yes, thanks. Whether that is the plan any longer will depend on what the engineers find out. One obvious critical (no pun intended) issue must be what is causing it. If it is - for instance - repeated HGV transits in numbers and weights above design level then the solution may simply be to ban HGVs which is presumably what they had in mind all along. If the problem loading is less than that then there is abigger problem.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
He will probably be 70 or so by the time he ascends. If he has any sense he will co-opt William and Harry as co-regents. He will probably reign for 20-25 years.
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually) and fails to understand that doesn't mean that his own views or positions are either popular or the right ones.
If we had the luxury of a choice of the Queen's children for monarch, I would vote Anne.
Sorry, I meant the first 40 years of its life. The link seems to be for a specialist survey following n from an earlier one some time before, which would fit.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
"I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm", on pb.com at 11:00 am
Until the farting about the HoL has indulged in - I was pretty sanguine about the make up inc religious leaders.
Given how increasingly divisive religion has become in the UK - I want them out. All of them. And ditto State faith schools, and maybe even private faith schools.
I've always been a live and let live sort - but Islam has brought too many issues with it and whilst I don't want to punish the good for the bad apples, I'm not sure we can just restrict one faith.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
One shouldn't begrudge an old biddy her climaxing.
Nats : cracking up like the bridges they were supposed to be maintaining.
I was just thinking the other day when reading @JosiasJessop and @Dair on the new Forth Bridge and its cost of c 1.4bn, how much of that money could have been found in the money the Labour-LD administrations used to return to Whitehall every year for want of managing their budgets properly.
The new bridge is a big dead squirrel to throw on the table but wasn't the plan to have TWO bridges ?
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
Squirrel 2 ?
No the plan was to have two bridges operating in tandem - one new, one old split by traffic types.
Is that no longer the plan ?
That's exactly what I meant, yes, thanks. Whether that is the plan any longer will depend on what the engineers find out. One obvious critical (no pun intended) issue must be what is causing it. If it is - for instance - repeated HGV transits in numbers and weights above design level then the solution may simply be to ban HGVs which is presumably what they had in mind all along. If the problem loading is less than that then there is abigger problem.
Ignoring the engineering - do you not think it's bad "optics" for Nicola to be at some climate change jolly whilst the floods and infrastructure are up the swanny ?
Should she not be flying back to chair a McCOBRA meeting ? Badly advised ?
Mr. Royale, wouldn't say I dread it, but I do feel some concern.
He has learnt nothing, and he has forgotten nothing.
He simply can't learn to shut up, and thinks his opinions really matter. That is going to be an issue and I don't expect for a minute he will 'stop' the moment he becomes King.
I expect he will be a national embarassment on the Corbyn-level. The constitution and Commonwealth realms will fall apart faster than you can say Oliver Cromwell.
The whole point of the monarchy is to be and to be seen - not to say anything. The Queen understands this. I'm not at all sure Charles does. The useful stuff he does - his Prince's Trust, helping Cumbrian hill farmers etc - is outweighed by the portentous drivel he comes out with on topics where he has no knowledge whatsoever (medecine and homeopathy, for instance) and merely repeats what the last person who spoke to him told him. He then mistakes polite applause and fawning for thinking he has some sort of special insight.
We should reintroduce the court jester to remind him that, royal or not, he is as daft as the rest of us. Or maybe, like the Caesars, he needs someone to remind him: "Remember, sire, thou art mortal."
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now
And has been since 1999 - and the SNP since 2007.
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
He will probably be 70 or so by the time he ascends. If he has any sense he will co-opt William and Harry as co-regents. He will probably reign for 20-25 years.
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually) and fails to understand that doesn't mean that his own views or positions are either popular or the right ones.
If we had the luxury of a choice of the Queen's children for monarch, I would vote Anne.
Maybe we'll just have to adopt the Borgias' favourite solution to such problems.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
None of your effing business either as to why people might want to refer to why, who or at what time other people post on here, to be fair. Or has the petty functionary status of moderator been conferred upon you?
Once the British army were great pontoon bridge builders, but then they had the men and the equipment. They could still manage to build one over the thames at Hamton Court - I hope - but the Firth of Forth would be beyond them today.
Am wondering if bridging a Cumbrian river or stream is beyond their capabilities.
They managed that in the last floods IIRC, to be fair to them.
I'd pick Anne too. The other two don't even get close.
IMO, Charles is too self-obsessed. Years ago I saw an intv where he moaned about *not having a voice* to express his opinions. I was WTF? You're being intvd as the next King. He's like a teenage still rebelling against his parents far too often.
I wouldn't want his life in a million years, but he clearly thinks that he's rather important - and more so than his job demands. Let him build Poundsburys, sell rare pig sausages and talk to plants - but the rest of it, a serious no-no.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
He will probably be 70 or so by the time he ascends. If he has any sense he will co-opt William and Harry as co-regents. He will probably reign for 20-25 years.
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually) and fails to understand that doesn't mean that his own views or positions are either popular or the right ones.
If we had the luxury of a choice of the Queen's children for monarch, I would vote Anne.
Scotland is not alone with bridge problems,the 2 bridges across the Lune into Lancaster were damaged in the storm and are now closed for inspection/repair, and the whole area now is gridlocked. We have just got power back this morning after an HV substation near the Lune was inundated, we lost power to 60000 homes, I think many of us are now connected via temporary generators. Because we thought the power would be off for a long time, we decamped and moved up to a place in the Eden valley, Cumbria has been battered,Carlisle in particular. I had trouble finding a bridge that was passable to cross the Eden, only big 4x4 cars could get through. The river Eden was half a mile wide, the Lune was even worse,definitely the worst storm I have seen in this area, ever!
Not sure about Charles's longevity. People may be extrapolating too far from the Queen Mother's innings.
Btw, isn't one very unsatisfactory feature of monarchy that it is rubbish for political betting? You can't make a market on next out, exit date etc without it appearing tasteless.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
"I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm", on pb.com at 11:00 am
*He says from his glass house*
Today seems to be a really slow work day. Updated some models when I arrived at 8, fed some data into a few other models afterwards. Read the financial news, and now I'm waiting for a junior researcher to get me some sales data for smartphones and tablets for the last four years broken down by brand and model. I may have to do it myself if he hasn't done it by lunch.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
Well, it's a feature not a bug of monarchy that you get crap kings.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
Crikey! Finish work by 14:00? I thought you were in the private sector, if so your company needs some new managers right sharpish. Of course, if I have it wrong and you are in the public sector, then well done for working well above the norm. In my not-inconsiderable experience, non-medical public sector office workers actually put in an average of three hours productive (if that is the right word) effort a day.
Mr. Royale, wouldn't say I dread it, but I do feel some concern.
He has learnt nothing, and he has forgotten nothing.
He simply can't learn to shut up, and thinks his opinions really matter. That is going to be an issue and I don't expect for a minute he will 'stop' the moment he becomes King.
I expect he will be a national embarassment on the Corbyn-level. The constitution and Commonwealth realms will fall apart faster than you can say Oliver Cromwell.
The whole point of the monarchy is to be and to be seen - not to say anything. The Queen understands this. I'm not at all sure Charles does. The useful stuff he does - his Prince's Trust, helping Cumbrian hill farmers etc - is outweighed by the portentous drivel he comes out with on topics where he has no knowledge whatsoever (medecine and homeopathy, for instance) and merely repeats what the last person who spoke to him told him. He then mistakes polite applause and fawning for thinking he has some sort of special insight.
We should reintroduce the court jester to remind him that, royal or not, he is as daft as the rest of us. Or maybe, like the Caesars, he needs someone to remind him: "Remember, sire, thou art mortal."
He just doesn't have that level of intelligence.
He'd be perfectly pleasant (and harmless) as a minor landed aristocrat in the county shires, sponsoring the local fete and running a local shoot or two. Indeed, eccentricity is virtually encouraged for such folk. And I think he'd be much happier doing that too, to be fair.
But he's not head of state material. It's true to say that King George VI probably wasn't either but he had courage and did his duty, even though (tragically) it, and the pressures of WWII, eventually killed him.
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge A major inquiry into the place of religion in modern society has provoked a furious backlash from ministers and the Church of England"
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
Well, it's a feature not a bug of monarchy that you get crap kings.
And QE1's sister. Heck, we wouldn't be talking about Anglican bishops in the Lords if she were around.
Ignoring the engineering - do you not think it's bad "optics" for Nicola to be at some climate change jolly whilst the floods and infrastructure are up the swanny ?
Should she not be flying back to chair a McCOBRA meeting ? Badly advised ?
They'll have had their meeting some days back and the delegation done, I should think. And much of the media will say whatever they want anyway.
I've never been very sure that sending the FM or PM to see floods is necessarily a good idea - they just get in the way and it can be counterproductive.
I wouldn't want to go for a walk beside the Tweed without a wetsuit and jetpack right now. But the floods don't seem to be such an issue in Scotland, places such as Hawick notwithstanding - the area of high rainfall was a much smaller part of the Tweed watershed etc. than in Cumberland. Now that you ask, most of the photos on the media seem to be of flooded fields rather than houses, and even Hawick is draining off. And given that it is climate change that is likely to be partly the problem, cancelling Paris to go and look at some high rivers would hardly be logical.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
Crikey! Finish work by 14:00? I thought you were in the private sector, if so your company needs some new managers right sharpish. Of course, if I have it wrong and you are in the public sector, then well done for working well above the norm. In my not-inconsiderable experience, non-medical public sector office workers actually put in an average of three hours productive (if that is the right word) effort a day.
My work day is 8-4 so its not as bad as it seems. I just work quickly and don't fart about when I have stuff to do.
I'd pick Anne too. The other two don't even get close.
IMO, Charles is too self-obsessed. Years ago I saw an intv where he moaned about *not having a voice* to express his opinions. I was WTF? You're being intvd as the next King. He's like a teenage still rebelling against his parents far too often.
I wouldn't want his life in a million years, but he clearly thinks that he's rather important - and more so than his job demands. Let him build Poundsburys, sell rare pig sausages and talk to plants - but the rest of it, a serious no-no.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
He will probably be 70 or so by the time he ascends. If he has any sense he will co-opt William and Harry as co-regents. He will probably reign for 20-25 years.
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually
There's a precedent for unsuitable Kings to stand aside. Personally, I'd have no problem with building a resignation 'clause' into the monarchy to allow heirs (where there is an alternative) to pass the buck onto the next if they really feel it's not for them.
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge A major inquiry into the place of religion in modern society has provoked a furious backlash from ministers and the Church of England"
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
I think monarchs should be female. Since we're unlikely to need another Henry V, Queens are the way to go. They fulfil the essential role of a monarch far better than men.
Even famously Republican France has a Marianne to represent it.
@Plato - and he will have a voice as monarch to 'advise and warn'. Most obviously in weekly private audiences with the PM, which plenty of wealthy donors pay tens of thousands of pounds for as a one-off and (even then) don't get such access.
The thing is: the Government might get credit for acting on such advice, rather than him. He wants to be seen and lauded as a leader in his own right.
But if that's not got enough for him he probably shouldn't be King.
'''I meant to ask a while ago - are you a Scottish Labour supporter? If so, I think you're the only one I've ever seen in all my years here.'''
The one thing that characterises the Nats on here is their ''happyclappyness''. I rail at the tories all time, but for the nats the SNP is perfect in all it does, and quite unimpeachable.
There is never a hint of self criticism, never an admission that a certain policy or approach may have just possibly been the wrong one.
This is a mainly English, mainly Unionist (or Unionist party supporting) and mainly conservative site whose primary purpose seems to be to provide a blood-warm forum for very right wing folk to argue with quite right wing folk about who possesses the true, blue flame. Why would a 'Nat' wish to discuss the pros & cons of the SNP here?
Of course you can always a lead a delegation over to Wings Over Scotland to reiterate your railing against the Tories there.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
How much impact this will have is questionable. Having survived 13,600 of your (single or plural) insights the NATS will probably survive a few more!
My conclusion is that either you (plural) are the Tory research department in which case you should have better things to do like looking for the bogus battalions of 70,000 troops or alternatively you (single) very badly need some sleep.
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now
And has been since 1999 - and the SNP since 2007.
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
No argumkent with the first three points, but are you sure of the last? There seems to have been much more going on with it in recent years.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
I think monarchs should be female. Since we're unlikely to need another Henry V, Queens are the way to go. They fulfil the essential role of a monarch far better than men.
Even famously Republican France has a Marianne to represent it.
Hard to disagree with that. Who stands up next to both Elizabeths, and Victoria?
Maybe Edward I and Edward IV (for different reasons) and I think George VI was a hero too.
I'd pick Anne too. The other two don't even get close.
IMO, Charles is too self-obsessed. Years ago I saw an intv where he moaned about *not having a voice* to express his opinions. I was WTF? You're being intvd as the next King. He's like a teenage still rebelling against his parents far too often.
I wouldn't want his life in a million years, but he clearly thinks that he's rather important - and more so than his job demands. Let him build Poundsburys, sell rare pig sausages and talk to plants - but the rest of it, a serious no-no.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
He will probably be 70 or so by the time he ascends. If he has any sense he will co-opt William and Harry as co-regents. He will probably reign for 20-25 years.
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually
There's a precedent for unsuitable Kings to stand aside. Personally, I'd have no problem with building a resignation 'clause' into the monarchy to allow heirs (where there is an alternative) to pass the buck onto the next if they really feel it's not for them.
Plenty of precedent: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward VIII.
'''I meant to ask a while ago - are you a Scottish Labour supporter? If so, I think you're the only one I've ever seen in all my years here.'''
The one thing that characterises the Nats on here is their ''happyclappyness''. I rail at the tories all time, but for the nats the SNP is perfect in all it does, and quite unimpeachable.
There is never a hint of self criticism, never an admission that a certain policy or approach may have just possibly been the wrong one.
This is a mainly English, mainly Unionist (or Unionist party supporting) and mainly conservative site whose primary purpose seems to be to provide a blood-warm forum for very right wing folk to argue with quite right wing folk about who possesses the true, blue flame. Why would a 'Nat' wish to discuss the pros & cons of the SNP here?
Of course you can always a lead a delegation over to Wings Over Scotland to reiterate your railing against the Tories there.
Charles should take the throne for a short period so he can abdicate and let the job fall to William. He seems much more suited to the role of being the sovereign than Charles. Kate will be a popular queen, they have a young family and his causes are limited to helping military veterans and young people. Nothing controversial. If he were to speak to the PM about ensuring that military veterans got better care I don't think the nation would be too upset.
Miss Cyclefree, point of order (and I hope I'm not misremembering), but I believe the slave whispering "Remember you are mortal" attended a victorious general who had been awarded a Triumph by the Senate [a few happened in the imperial era, I think, usually given by the emperor to himself].
Not sure how old the Triumph was. I wonder if Camillus ever had one... [checking Wikipedia, it seems he had four].
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
You just know Charles is going to choose a crap/trendy Regnal name.
I really worry (and I really do) if I will be able to sing the national anthem with conviction when he's King.
I mean, can you imagine the level of wince if he becomes something of an embarrassment and our countrymen laugh or joke when it's played at major international sporting events?
I hated being bored at work when contracting for Whitehall. I'd bring a book and finish it within a couple of days, after running out of places to surf. I'd reckon on a week's work in 3 days.
I'm pretty quick when handed a task, and then start to annex other people's jobs when left with time on my hands - which can be enormously irritating. Better, tougher management is required in the public sector. I'm not at all surprised that Whitehall has lost tens of thousands and no one has noticed.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
Crikey! Finish work by 14:00? I thought you were in the private sector, if so your company needs some new managers right sharpish. Of course, if I have it wrong and you are in the public sector, then well done for working well above the norm. In my not-inconsiderable experience, non-medical public sector office workers actually put in an average of three hours productive (if that is the right word) effort a day.
I'd pick Anne too. The other two don't even get close.
IMO, Charles is too self-obsessed. Years ago I saw an intv where he moaned about *not having a voice* to express his opinions. I was WTF? You're being intvd as the next King. He's like a teenage still rebelling against his parents far too often.
I wouldn't want his life in a million years, but he clearly thinks that he's rather important - and more so than his job demands. Let him build Poundsburys, sell rare pig sausages and talk to plants - but the rest of it, a serious no-no.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
He will probably be 70 or so by the time he ascends. If he has any sense he will co-opt William and Harry as co-regents. He will probably reign for 20-25 years.
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually
There's a precedent for unsuitable Kings to stand aside. Personally, I'd have no problem with building a resignation 'clause' into the monarchy to allow heirs (where there is an alternative) to pass the buck onto the next if they really feel it's not for them.
Plenty of precedent: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward VIII.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
I think monarchs should be female. Since we're unlikely to need another Henry V, Queens are the way to go. They fulfil the essential role of a monarch far better than men.
Even famously Republican France has a Marianne to represent it.
Hard to disagree with that. Who stands up next to both Elizabeths, and Victoria?
Maybe Edward I and Edward IV (for different reasons) and I think George VI was a hero too.
One of the unusual features (for its time) of 18th century Russia was that it was largely ruled by Tsarinas.
Catherine the Great had the sort of life that reads like a historical fantasy novel. In reality, the Romanov dynasty ended when she murdered her husband, and made her own illegitimate son the Crown Prince.
Mr. Royale, wouldn't say I dread it, but I do feel some concern.
He has learnt nothing, and he has forgotten nothing.
He simply can't learn to shut up, and thinks his opinions really matter. That is going to be an issue and I don't expect for a minute he will 'stop' the moment he becomes King.
I expect he will be a national embarassment on the Corbyn-level. The constitution and Commonwealth realms will fall apart faster than you can say Oliver Cromwell.
The whole point of the monarchy is to be and to be seen - not to say anything. The Queen understands this. I'm not at all sure Charles does. The useful stuff he does - his Prince's Trust, helping Cumbrian hill farmers etc - is outweighed by the portentous drivel he comes out with on topics where he has no knowledge whatsoever (medecine and homeopathy, for instance) and merely repeats what the last person who spoke to him told him. He then mistakes polite applause and fawning for thinking he has some sort of special insight.
We should reintroduce the court jester to remind him that, royal or not, he is as daft as the rest of us. Or maybe, like the Caesars, he needs someone to remind him: "Remember, sire, thou art mortal."
He just doesn't have that level of intelligence.
He'd be perfectly pleasant (and harmless) as a minor landed aristocrat in the county shires, sponsoring the local fete and running a local shoot or two. Indeed, eccentricity is virtually encouraged for such folk. And I think he'd be much happier doing that too, to be fair.
But he's not head of state material. It's true to say that King George VI probably wasn't either but he had courage and did his duty, even though (tragically) it, and the pressures of WWII, eventually killed him.
I am sure that the PoW has his faults, he is only a man after all. However, a lack of courage is not one of them. Those parachute wings he wears on his shoulders when in military uniform - he earned them. He was also an active RN officer who was given command of a ship, a small ship to be sure but a ship nonetheless and the RN won't do that just because a person is a royal (see the Duke of York).
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers ... will end up working shorter days.
You are assuming that Financial Service workers add value...
I tend to finish my day's work by about 2pm and just spend the rest of the day surfing the net. No one really cares and I'm not inclined to start hassling people to finish their stuff so I can start on the next day's tasks.
Crikey! Finish work by 14:00? I thought you were in the private sector, if so your company needs some new managers right sharpish. Of course, if I have it wrong and you are in the public sector, then well done for working well above the norm. In my not-inconsiderable experience, non-medical public sector office workers actually put in an average of three hours productive (if that is the right word) effort a day.
Well, Mr Llama, it does rather depend if Mr PB is;-
1. Clever and Industrious. 2. Clever and Lazy. 3. Stupid and Industrious. 4. Stupid and Lazy.
If he were no. 3 you really would not want him doing any more, now would you?
(Note: I'm sure MaxPB falls into 1 or possibly 2. As we all know those in 1 get appointed to the General Staff and those in 2 to the Highest Leadership posts. Putting people where they can do the least harm is a key attribute of any good manager......)
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
You just know Charles is going to choose a crap/trendy Regnal name.
I really worry (and I really do) if I will be able to sing the national anthem with conviction when he's King.
I mean, can you imagine the level of wince if he becomes something of an embarrassment and our countrymen laugh or joke when it's played at major international sporting events?
All they'd need to do is restore the verse about Marshal Wade and I'd sing it with gusto and conviction in those circumstances.
'''I meant to ask a while ago - are you a Scottish Labour supporter? If so, I think you're the only one I've ever seen in all my years here.'''
The one thing that characterises the Nats on here is their ''happyclappyness''. I rail at the tories all time, but for the nats the SNP is perfect in all it does, and quite unimpeachable.
There is never a hint of self criticism, never an admission that a certain policy or approach may have just possibly been the wrong one.
This is a mainly English, mainly Unionist (or Unionist party supporting) and mainly conservative site whose primary purpose seems to be to provide a blood-warm forum for very right wing folk to argue with quite right wing folk about who possesses the true, blue flame. Why would a 'Nat' wish to discuss the pros & cons of the SNP here?
Of course you can always a lead a delegation over to Wings Over Scotland to reiterate your railing against the Tories there.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
I think monarchs should be female. Since we're unlikely to need another Henry V, Queens are the way to go. They fulfil the essential role of a monarch far better than men.
Even famously Republican France has a Marianne to represent it.
You may be right. I wonder if it's related to the fact that in most cases female heirs apparent are not really certain that they will become queen as a male heir may jump in ahead of them. Contrast Charles who really has known it's his destiny to be king since he was old enough to understand what the word meant.
If you think there are too many council officials in the UK that act like jumped up little Hitlers, imagine what the ISIS "government" officials are/will be like.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now
And has been since 1999 - and the SNP since 2007.
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
No argumkent with the first three points, but are you sure of the last? There seems to have been much more going on with it in recent years.
Transport for Scotland have day to day responsibility - but political responsibility rests with the Minister for Transport (and variously, Veterans, Housing & Climate Change, at different times) and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure - the previous incumbent currently in Paris.....
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now
And has been since 1999 - and the SNP since 2007.
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
No argumkent with the first three points, but are you sure of the last? There seems to have been much more going on with it in recent years.
Transport for Scotland have day to day responsibility - but political responsibility rests with the Minister for Transport (and variously, Veterans, Housing & Climate Change, at different times) and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure - the previous incumbent currently in Paris.....
Er, didn't answer the question, or I didn't make it clear: what is the evidence for lack of maintenance?
Charles should take the throne for a short period so he can abdicate and let the job fall to William. He seems much more suited to the role of being the sovereign than Charles. Kate will be a popular queen, they have a young family and his causes are limited to helping military veterans and young people. Nothing controversial. If he were to speak to the PM about ensuring that military veterans got better care I don't think the nation would be too upset.
The puzzle is why Carswell ignored the faults with Farage's UKIP before jumping ship. Did he not negotiate any deal with Farage to tackle the known UKIP problems? Carswell could have brought in key reforms to UKIP, particulalry if he teamed up with Reckless. An opportunity lost.
I think he genuinely underestimated just how much of a one man band UKIP is as long as Farage is in charge. Were he to go I would expect a transformation in their level of professionalism and their public persona but as long as good old Nigel thinks it is his baby UKIP will simply not reform in the way I think most of its senior members would like.
Some of us never thought he was an asset (as a party leader) in the first place.
That's harsh Mr Tyndall, 4m votes is testament to his hard work, sure he's made mistakes but Ukip would be nowhere witjout him. That said, I honestly believe it's time for a dignified exit and a slight change in course. The country is crying out for a different approach, a group of decent, intelligent, libertarian minded people can provide it.
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge A major inquiry into the place of religion in modern society has provoked a furious backlash from ministers and the Church of England"
Charles should take the throne for a short period so he can abdicate and let the job fall to William. He seems much more suited to the role of being the sovereign than Charles. Kate will be a popular queen, they have a young family and his causes are limited to helping military veterans and young people. Nothing controversial. If he were to speak to the PM about ensuring that military veterans got better care I don't think the nation would be too upset.
'''I meant to ask a while ago - are you a Scottish Labour supporter? If so, I think you're the only one I've ever seen in all my years here.'''
The one thing that characterises the Nats on here is their ''happyclappyness''. I rail at the tories all time, but for the nats the SNP is perfect in all it does, and quite unimpeachable.
There is never a hint of self criticism, never an admission that a certain policy or approach may have just possibly been the wrong one.
Why would a 'Nat' wish to discuss the pros & cons of the SNP here?
Or indeed, engage with argument, when its so much easier simply to insult other posters?
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now
And has been since 1999 - and the SNP since 2007.
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
No argumkent with the first three points, but are you sure of the last? There seems to have been much more going on with it in recent years.
Transport for Scotland have day to day responsibility - but political responsibility rests with the Minister for Transport (and variously, Veterans, Housing & Climate Change, at different times) and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure - the previous incumbent currently in Paris.....
Er, didn't answer the question, or I didn't make it clear: what is the evidence for lack of maintenance?
If you think there are too many council officials in the UK that act like jumped up little Hitlers, imagine what the ISIS "government" officials are/will be like.
Why do you think that the left (both here and in the US) are deliberately denying the dangers of ISIS.
'''I meant to ask a while ago - are you a Scottish Labour supporter? If so, I think you're the only one I've ever seen in all my years here.'''
The one thing that characterises the Nats on here is their ''happyclappyness''. I rail at the tories all time, but for the nats the SNP is perfect in all it does, and quite unimpeachable.
There is never a hint of self criticism, never an admission that a certain policy or approach may have just possibly been the wrong one.
Why would a 'Nat' wish to discuss the pros & cons of the SNP here?
Or indeed, engage with argument, when its so much easier simply to insult other posters?
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers in the Gyle and elsewhere in Edinburgh live north of the Forth where housing is cheaper. They are going to find it incredibly difficult to get to work and will end up working shorter days.
Before the bridge shut some of the commuter trains from Fife were already not being allowed to open their doors at various stations because of the dangers of overcrowding. There is no spare capacity. The consequences for Edinburgh's shops in the run up to Christmas will be severe as well.
On Friday night the chaos went as far west as Stirling. I had a very difficult journey home and have booked additional accommodation in Edinburgh over the next few weeks. But not everyone can do that.
If maintenance was indeed cut back because of the abolition of the tolls that would be a major scandal. The story may prove to be more complex than that though.
The saviour of the UK economy - Services - is not doing so well in Scotland:
Dougie Adams, senior economic adviser to the EY Scottish ITEM Club, said: “Although Scotland has been impacted by the effects of lower oil prices on North Sea-related activity, weak growth in private services is a major cause of this year’s shortfall in comparison to UK growth.”
At the time of SindyRef there were claims (poo-pooed by the Nats) that uncertainty would lead to lack of or delayed investment - if that was the case, then stirring up continuing uncertainty might not be the smartest move.....
There has also undoubtedly been a drift of some business southwards from Edinburgh in particular. Not all of the contingency plans put in place for the referendum have been shelved and the continuing threat of a repeat performance really does not help.
But I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact on services of north sea cutbacks. A friend of mine runs a butchers business in Dundee but for years had a very successful and more profitable business in supplying conferences and events related to the North Sea. Almost all of that business has gone. The north sea is a lot more than the rigs.
You (either single or plural) attack the SNP in one thread with three posts running climaxing at 3.21am (with no-body else left on the site) and then get up at 7.28am on this thread - to attack the SNP again!
If it is the latter then it really will make you feel better and oh don't forget the tablets.
None of your effing business why, who or at what time people post on here. There are dozens of reasons for people to be on here at any time they damn well please.
Engage with the points, or ignore them.
I think she thinks we are all in the same time zone - some part of www has passed her by.....
Of course, if she is in the UK, she was posting at 2.43am.......perhaps its not me who is 'single' and 'very badly in need of some sleep'......
Curiously enough there is a marked Nat resistance to engage in argument about responsibility for the Forth Bridge - they can only attack posters who bring it up - defensive, much?
The direct responsibility for the bridge is obviously the Scottish Government, now
And has been since 1999 - and the SNP since 2007.
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
No argumkent with the first three points, but are you sure of the last? There seems to have been much more going on with it in recent years.
Transport for Scotland have day to day responsibility - but political responsibility rests with the Minister for Transport (and variously, Veterans, Housing & Climate Change, at different times) and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure - the previous incumbent currently in Paris.....
Er, didn't answer the question, or I didn't make it clear: what is the evidence for lack of maintenance?
Will inspections be stepped up for Humber, Tamar, and Severn Bridges?
Charles should take the throne for a short period so he can abdicate and let the job fall to William. He seems much more suited to the role of being the sovereign than Charles. Kate will be a popular queen, they have a young family and his causes are limited to helping military veterans and young people. Nothing controversial. If he were to speak to the PM about ensuring that military veterans got better care I don't think the nation would be too upset.
Camilla makes Charles look an intellectual.
She gives the impression that she doesn't take herself too seriously, which I rather like. That's what Charles is lacking. The paradox of monarchy is that those monarchs or putative monarchs who take themselves too seriously and think they - rather than the institution - matter more are the ones who tend to make a mess of it. Think Edward VIII, for instance.
Plenty of precedent: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward VIII.
Mr. F, I am not sure you can cite Edward II and Richard II as monarchs who stood aside because they felt they were not up to the job. Both of them were deposed and murdered. Henry VI was, probably, barking mad and was deposed, twice, and eventually also probably murdered.
Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he felt he was not up to the job but because he was unable to conform to the social standards of his day, he suffered from what we used to call Caprinosity - his bollocks were bigger than his brain.
If you think there are too many council officials in the UK that act like jumped up little Hitlers, imagine what the ISIS "government" officials are/will be like.
Er! Far from it to praise Da'esh, but they at least have the option to remove the heads of the little Hitlers, we can only wish to do so with ours......
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
You just know Charles is going to choose a crap/trendy Regnal name.
I really worry (and I really do) if I will be able to sing the national anthem with conviction when he's King.
I mean, can you imagine the level of wince if he becomes something of an embarrassment and our countrymen laugh or joke when it's played at major international sporting events?
Each to their own - the words have always been irrelevant to me, it's just a patriotic ritual, so I don't think I'll have a problem.
Comments
I see him exactly as you describe in your last sentence... I'd quite like it if UKIP were a collection of independent minds with a common cause, rather than a whipped party
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
Unionists will see this as evidence as to why Scotland needs to remain in the union, and evidence of mismanagement of the economy by the SNP government.
Nationalists will see this as evidence of the consequences of remaining under the jackboot of the British state.
I don't expect much in the way of a meeting of minds.
Do you think the choice of Lab candidate will pretty irrelevant for their chances?
No the plan was to have two bridges operating in tandem - one new, one old split by traffic types.
Is that no longer the plan ?
(It was idiotic, mind, and not his finest hour, but you need to be careful about hindsight)
He simply can't learn to shut up, and thinks his opinions really matter. That is going to be an issue and I don't expect for a minute he will 'stop' the moment he becomes King.
I expect he will be a national embarassment on the Corbyn-level. The constitution and Commonwealth realms will fall apart faster than you can say Oliver Cromwell.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
Still, we shall see.
Doesn't matter who the Labour PCC is methinks they will get the gig.
How this translates to the actual result is another matter, which remains to be seen.
I've seen it stated that there was no major inspection of the bridge for about 40 years, but I find that surprising to put it mildly.
The Forth Road Bridge opened in 1964, replacing a centuries-old ferry crossing. Proposals for an additional road crossing at Queensferry were drawn up in the early 1990s, as part of the "Setting Forth" consultation document prepared by the Scottish Office. The plans met stiff opposition from environmentalists and from the [Labour] City of Edinburgh Council on the grounds of the increased traffic. Following the Labour victory in the 1997 general election, the proposals were shelved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensferry_Crossing
Why? "I couldn't live anywhere they didn't speak English"
https://archive.is/UKJ82
The issue he has is self-awareness. It's fine to have a different personality to HM Queen Elizabeth, but he doesn't seem to get why she's so popular and that it doesn't automaticalls translate to him.
I understand he surrounds himself with people who pay deference to him (as, indeed, constitutionally they must..but no more than ritually) and fails to understand that doesn't mean that his own views or positions are either popular or the right ones.
If we had the luxury of a choice of the Queen's children for monarch, I would vote Anne.
*He says from his glass house*
And, as others have commented, the Trojan Horse schools were completely secular.
Should she not be flying back to chair a McCOBRA meeting ? Badly advised ?
We should reintroduce the court jester to remind him that, royal or not, he is as daft as the rest of us. Or maybe, like the Caesars, he needs someone to remind him: "Remember, sire, thou art mortal."
To an extent the SNP are 'holding the parcel when the music stopped' - but since they've been in power for eighteen months shy of a decade, its unequivocally 'on their watch'.
As a country we're poor at long term infrastructure planning - and Labour bear responsibility (nationally from 1997, and on Edinburgh Council) for initially getting us into a situation where 'all our eggs were in one basket' - so the SNP were right to go ahead with the second crossing - originally mooted by the Tories in the 1990s.
However, none of that absolves them from responsibility for the day-to-day (lack of) maintenance of the current crossing.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8504256.stm
IMO, Charles is too self-obsessed. Years ago I saw an intv where he moaned about *not having a voice* to express his opinions. I was WTF? You're being intvd as the next King. He's like a teenage still rebelling against his parents far too often.
I wouldn't want his life in a million years, but he clearly thinks that he's rather important - and more so than his job demands. Let him build Poundsburys, sell rare pig sausages and talk to plants - but the rest of it, a serious no-no.
Because we thought the power would be off for a long time, we decamped and moved up to a place in the Eden valley, Cumbria has been battered,Carlisle in particular. I had trouble finding a bridge that was passable to cross the Eden, only big 4x4 cars could get through. The river Eden was half a mile wide, the Lune was even worse,definitely the worst storm I have seen in this area, ever!
Btw, isn't one very unsatisfactory feature of monarchy that it is rubbish for political betting? You can't make a market on next out, exit date etc without it appearing tasteless.
He'd be perfectly pleasant (and harmless) as a minor landed aristocrat in the county shires, sponsoring the local fete and running a local shoot or two. Indeed, eccentricity is virtually encouraged for such folk. And I think he'd be much happier doing that too, to be fair.
But he's not head of state material. It's true to say that King George VI probably wasn't either but he had courage and did his duty, even though (tragically) it, and the pressures of WWII, eventually killed him.
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge
A major inquiry into the place of religion in modern society has provoked a furious backlash from ministers and the Church of England"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12036287/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christian-country-and-should-stop-acting-as-if-it-is-says-judge.html
I've never been very sure that sending the FM or PM to see floods is necessarily a good idea - they just get in the way and it can be counterproductive.
I wouldn't want to go for a walk beside the Tweed without a wetsuit and jetpack right now. But the floods don't seem to be such an issue in Scotland, places such as Hawick notwithstanding - the area of high rainfall was a much smaller part of the Tweed watershed etc. than in Cumberland. Now that you ask, most of the photos on the media seem to be of flooded fields rather than houses, and even Hawick is draining off. And given that it is climate change that is likely to be partly the problem, cancelling Paris to go and look at some high rivers would hardly be logical.
Now, we will never know.
Who are these judges? We seem to have a canker that's rapidly expanding given the number of times such stupidity appears in the press.
Even famously Republican France has a Marianne to represent it.
The thing is: the Government might get credit for acting on such advice, rather than him. He wants to be seen and lauded as a leader in his own right.
But if that's not got enough for him he probably shouldn't be King.
Of course you can always a lead a delegation over to Wings Over Scotland to reiterate your railing against the Tories there.
Maybe Edward I and Edward IV (for different reasons) and I think George VI was a hero too.
Miss Cyclefree, point of order (and I hope I'm not misremembering), but I believe the slave whispering "Remember you are mortal" attended a victorious general who had been awarded a Triumph by the Senate [a few happened in the imperial era, I think, usually given by the emperor to himself].
Not sure how old the Triumph was. I wonder if Camillus ever had one... [checking Wikipedia, it seems he had four].
I mean, can you imagine the level of wince if he becomes something of an embarrassment and our countrymen laugh or joke when it's played at major international sporting events?
I'm pretty quick when handed a task, and then start to annex other people's jobs when left with time on my hands - which can be enormously irritating. Better, tougher management is required in the public sector. I'm not at all surprised that Whitehall has lost tens of thousands and no one has noticed.
The Isis papers: leaked documents show how Isis is building its state
Blueprint lays bare new contours of Islamic state, complete with civil service, regional government and Soviet levels of economic control
http://gu.com/p/4ekkm?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Catherine the Great had the sort of life that reads like a historical fantasy novel. In reality, the Romanov dynasty ended when she murdered her husband, and made her own illegitimate son the Crown Prince.
Or Alfred, for that matter?
1. Clever and Industrious.
2. Clever and Lazy.
3. Stupid and Industrious.
4. Stupid and Lazy.
If he were no. 3 you really would not want him doing any more, now would you?
(Note: I'm sure MaxPB falls into 1 or possibly 2. As we all know those in 1 get appointed to the General Staff and those in 2 to the Highest Leadership posts. Putting people where they can do the least harm is a key attribute of any good manager......)
The whole Camilla thing is another factor - she can't be queen and just drags up a messy past.
Better to nod to Charles and move on.
Oh wait
Because grown-ups from other Parties manage to do it with each other every day on many subjects?
There has also undoubtedly been a drift of some business southwards from Edinburgh in particular. Not all of the contingency plans put in place for the referendum have been shelved and the continuing threat of a repeat performance really does not help.
But I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact on services of north sea cutbacks. A friend of mine runs a butchers business in Dundee but for years had a very successful and more profitable business in supplying conferences and events related to the North Sea. Almost all of that business has gone. The north sea is a lot more than the rigs.
So we might get a decent PMQs for a change.
Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he felt he was not up to the job but because he was unable to conform to the social standards of his day, he suffered from what we used to call Caprinosity - his bollocks were bigger than his brain.