I see that clown Charles is meddling in politics, as a monarchist I've long been concerned about this plant talking nut job. His mother must be doing all she can to outlive him.
If you are a monarchist then you should accept the heir to the throne being kept in the picture. The genetic lottery and line to the throne is intrinsic to monarchy.
One thing we should copy from Europe is retirement of the monarch, or we are going to always have a gerontocracy.
The reason I'm a monarchist is because our head of state is apolitical, Charles should not interfere or be seen to be interfering.
The monarch is apolitical. The private audience with the PM will be a different matter. In time both Prince William and Prince George will have a similar role. Historically both the heir to the throne and the spouse of the Monarch have had similar access to state papers.
For HMQ it was ever thus so most people don't have a problem with it.
For subsequent generations, perhaps including Charles, I'm not so sure.
Not sure about his counsel or advice, either.
The.
Times move on, Jack.
In my mind is a picture, shown in all the media, of William being manhandled into a car after a night out because he is so drunk he can't stand up on his own.
Some years ago the decision was made to demystify, demythify the Royal Family. They can't have their cake and eat it. Either they are a distant presence opining on events within their kingdom, or they are one of us (as they are trying to be now) in which case what's with the private audience with the PM?
Young man enjoys night out shocker !!
Look at how George III sons behaved and were reported to behave. Up market London brothels, courtesans and mistresses were the order of the day and titled bastard children were a plenty. "Times move on" is certainly true and the nature of monarchy has been a successful story of evolution.
However the monarch's direct involvement with the Prime Minister of the day remains the same, as indeed it should. It is a typically British compromise and works well. The Queen reigns and her Prime Minister governs.
I see that clown Charles is meddling in politics, as a monarchist I've long been concerned about this plant talking nut job. His mother must be doing all she can to outlive him.
If you are a monarchist then you should accept the heir to the throne being kept in the picture. The genetic lottery and line to the throne is intrinsic to monarchy.
One thing we should copy from Europe is retirement of the monarch, or we are going to always have a gerontocracy.
The reason I'm a monarchist is because our head of state is apolitical, Charles should not interfere or be seen to be interfering.
The monarch is apolitical. The private audience with the PM will be a different matter.
As heir to the throne I want Prince Charles to be fully informed so that on succession he will be fully appraised of the affairs of state so that he may be able to properly undertake his constitutional role to advise, counsel and warn the government of the day.
In time both Prince William and Prince George will have a similar role. Historically both the heir to the throne and the spouse of the Monarch have had similar access to state papers.
For HMQ it was ever thus so most people don't have a problem with it.
For subsequent generations, perhaps including Charles, I'm not so sure.
William - great bloke, it seems, but not unlike millions of other young men and I can see no reason, as heir to the throne (and eventual King), helicopter pilot, occasional boozer, polo player, father, Boujis-frequenter, he should get such access.
Not sure about his counsel or advice, either.
The Queen had access to state papers during her fathers reign as did her mother. In broad terms such regular access began with Prince Albert although there was some initial resistance to such a move.
Whether as monarch Charles's advice and counsel would wise or not is largely irrelevant. As monarch he may give it. The government may also ignore it.
I expect there will be a petition for William to succeed HMQ. The people who dislike Charles dislike him very much indeed.
Constitutional hereditary monarchy is not the X Factor.
The Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and in time Prince William will be Prince of Wales and succeed his father. Simon Cowell and his tight trousers and followers do not determine the succession.
Is there any chance whatever that Dave will complete his rounds of Euro persuasion efforts, come up empty, and decide that he will actually then join the Out camp? If he had a public epiphany and said 'I was in favour of remaining but have become persuaded that there is no political flexibility to move away from 'Ever Closer' so on balance I think it is better to leave and control our own destiny. I have always said I would take this view if my renegotiation efforts were frustrated and I intend to keep my word'.
He'd be a hero in his own party and would then win the referendum.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
But if those on the Left didn't react so hysterically to Trump like a pantomime baddie he probably wouldn't be so outrageous, nor doing so well.
There's something refreshing and satisfying to many that goes with him breaking just about every political taboo there is, coupled with they don't respect those politicians and commentators who are most offended by it.
The personal abuse of the Labour leader has also been used against Blair, Brown and Corbyn, and doubtless would have been much the same under, say, David Miliband, except with bananas in place of bacon sandwiches. The crucial factor was Messina's work in dissecting and micro-targeting which voters to tell "Miliband is a twat" or "Miliband is an SNP puppet" or whatever.
I know this has been your pet meme since the election, but the simple reality is, Labour were still unpopular and Ed was never perceived as a viable alternative to lead the country.
Lynton Crosby agrees Facebook and YouTube was key.
Having a good leader and good narrative also helped.
Is there any evidence for that? There's a tendency for politicians of all stripes to think social media both representative and decisive, but other than reinforcing a bit of narrative to self-selecting audiences here and there I'm not convinced it is.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
But if those on the Left didn't react so hysterically to Trump like a pantomime baddie he probably wouldn't be so outrageous, nor doing so well.
There's something refreshing and satisfying to many that goes with him breaking just about every political taboo there is, coupled with they don't respect those politicians and commentators who are most offended by it.
It seems odd that anybody would warm to someone aspiring for the most powerful job on the planet just because it pisses off some people you don't like.
@Kevin_Maguire: Ever wonder why Michael Gove looks so glum? Headline on wife Sarah Vine's Mail column: "Sorry chaps but women love sleep FAR more than sex!"
I'm not sure I wanted the image of those two having (or one of them attempting to have) sex in my mind.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
Maybe a Trump presidency would not affect you much but a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button and in charge of the most powerful military on the planet could certainly have significant consequences
Meaning: if Trump wins he'll launch nuclear missiles immediately.
That's why I want him to win, it'll give the hand wringers something else to fret about.
You really think that the US military would go ahead with a nuclear attack on the whim of a President? Utterly barking.
@ONS · 1m1 minute ago #Unemployment rate 5.2% for Aug-Oct 2015, down from 6.0% a year earlier http://ow.ly/VXHkE
@ONS · 20s21 seconds ago #Employment rate 73.9% for Aug-Oct 2015, highest since records began in 1971 http://ow.ly/VXHyK
And Corbyn is still talking about the need for People's QE to 'kickstart the economy'.
Denial seems to be a common theme for Comrade Corbyn and his clan.
They deny the economic recovery, they deny the meaning of electoral results, they deny public opinion on certain issues and they deny the forty year rejection of the left.
Mr. Chestnut, to be fair, Corbyn wants everything with 'the People's' in front of it.
"It is time for the People's Free Friday Doughnut!"
"We must have the People's Double Pay Wednesday!"
"It is imperative we have the People's Resignation of Jeremy Corbyn!"
Miss Plato, I think Corbyn's just bloody stupid. Any man who has to think about whether or not killing terrorists about to commit an atrocity is a good idea must have a hollow head.
DWP Young people in work or full-time education is the highest on record #getbritainworking https://t.co/tSV1MCzepL
That's 85.8%
When you take "unemployment!!!!" from Labour's list of scares to run against the Tories, there isn't much left for them to scream at the voters. They become a single-issue lobby. The NHS.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
But if those on the Left didn't react so hysterically to Trump like a pantomime baddie he probably wouldn't be so outrageous, nor doing so well.
There's something refreshing and satisfying to many that goes with him breaking just about every political taboo there is, coupled with they don't respect those politicians and commentators who are most offended by it.
It seems odd that anybody would warm to someone aspiring for the most powerful job on the planet just because it pisses off some people you don't like.
Why? That's certainly not uncommon amongst the Left and "the rich".
Mr. Chestnut, to be fair, Corbyn wants everything with 'the People's' in front of it.
"It is time for the People's Free Friday Doughnut!"
"We must have the People's Double Pay Wednesday!"
"It is imperative we have the People's Resignation of Jeremy Corbyn!"
Miss Plato, I think Corbyn's just bloody stupid. Any man who has to think about whether or not killing terrorists about to commit an atrocity is a good idea must have a hollow head.
@ONS · 1m1 minute ago #Unemployment rate 5.2% for Aug-Oct 2015, down from 6.0% a year earlier http://ow.ly/VXHkE
@ONS · 20s21 seconds ago #Employment rate 73.9% for Aug-Oct 2015, highest since records began in 1971 http://ow.ly/VXHyK
And Corbyn is still talking about the need for People's QE to 'kickstart the economy'.
Corbynistas should be fighting the battle for national relevance instead they are infighting the battle to extinguish the last vestiges of Blairism and all his works and followers.
The Conservative government holds the field of battle with ease and the rest are involved in minor skirmishes at the edges.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
Maybe a Trump presidency would not affect you much but a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button and in charge of the most powerful military on the planet could certainly have significant consequences
Meaning: if Trump wins he'll launch nuclear missiles immediately.
That's why I want him to win, it'll give the hand wringers something else to fret about.
Well if Trump has a hissy fit and nukes Moscow and Beijing I would imagine winding up the handwringers will be the last thing on your mind
Yes I can picture it now, Ivana burns the toast one morning and in a fit of pique Trump nukes Moscow and Beijing.
Come on Donald, you can do it, you're a nutter but the couple of days you have as president before Armageddon will be worth it.
It seems unlikely. For a start, surely the White House is packed to the rafters with chefs who can make toast.
Plus Ivana was dumped for a newer model several models ago.
Fair play to Donald, I'm beginning to like him even more
He said he'd be dating Ivanka, if she wasn't his daughter.
That's really quite a disturbing comment
It's a bit reminiscent of Rodrigo Borgia.
I'm not sure I'd vote for him either :-)
(Although if the alternative was Hillary Clinton, I'd be really struggling.)
DWP Young people in work or full-time education is the highest on record #getbritainworking https://t.co/tSV1MCzepL
That's 85.8%
When you take "unemployment!!!!" from Labour's list of scares to run against the Tories, there isn't much left for them to scream at the voters. They become a single-issue lobby. The NHS.
Miss Plato, quite. I wouldn't judge someone based on their academic/educational background, but one need only consider the idiotic content that dribbles from Corbyn's mouth to see he's a damned fool.
Let's negotiate with Daesh! Let's abolish the nuclear deterrent! Let's disband the army! WHat's that, Mao? Yes, good idea, let's disarm the police and disband MI5!
I see that clown Charles is meddling in politics, as a monarchist I've long been concerned about this plant talking nut job. His mother must be doing all she can to outlive him.
If you are a monarchist then you should accept the heir to the throne being kept in the picture. The genetic lottery and line to the throne is intrinsic to monarchy.
One thing we should copy from Europe is retirement of the monarch, or we are going to always have a gerontocracy.
The reason I'm a monarchist is because our head of state is apolitical, Charles should not interfere or be seen to be interfering.
Tte papers.
For HMQ it was ever thus so most people don't have a problem with it.
For subsequent generations, perhaps including Charles, I'm not so sure.
Not sure about his counsel or advice, either.
The.
Times move on, Jack.
In my mind is a picture, shown in all the media, of William being manhandled into a car after a night out because he is so drunk he can't stand up on his own.
Some years ago the decision was made to demystify, demythify the Royal Family. They can't have their cake and eat it. Either they are a distant presence opining on events within their kingdom, or they are one of us (as they are trying to be now) in which case what's with the private audience with the PM?
Young man enjoys night out shocker !!
Look at how George III sons behaved and were reported to behave. Up market London brothels, courtesans and mistresses were the order of the day and titled bastard children were a plenty. "Times move on" is certainly true and the nature of monarchy has been a successful story of evolution.
However the monarch's direct involvement with the Prime Minister of the day remains the same, as indeed it should. It is a typically British compromise and works well. The Queen reigns and her Prime Minister governs.
You make my point for me, Jack.
George III and George IV and William for that matter were involved in the governing of the country to a far greater extent than Charles or William are today.
The monarchy today are titular heads and we swear allegiance to them and long may it last.
If The Queen, or Charles after her, were to mimic a hundredth of the political activity of George III we would be in strange territory indeed. But of course they would never dream of it and hence the audience with the PM has likewise become an anachronism.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
But if those on the Left didn't react so hysterically to Trump like a pantomime baddie he probably wouldn't be so outrageous, nor doing so well.
There's something refreshing and satisfying to many that goes with him breaking just about every political taboo there is, coupled with they don't respect those politicians and commentators who are most offended by it.
Miss Plato, quite. I wouldn't judge someone based on their academic/educational background, but one need only consider the idiotic content that dribbles from Corbyn's mouth to see he's a damned fool.
Let's negotiate with Daesh! Let's abolish the nuclear deterrent! Let's disband the army! WHat's that, Mao? Yes, good idea, let's disarm the police and disband MI5!
DWP Young people in work or full-time education is the highest on record #getbritainworking https://t.co/tSV1MCzepL
That's 85.8%
When you take "unemployment!!!!" from Labour's list of scares to run against the Tories, there isn't much left for them to scream at the voters. They become a single-issue lobby. The NHS.
Lefties praying for the weather to turn cold and nasty.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
Maybe a Trump presidency would not affect you much but a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button and in charge of the most powerful military on the planet could certainly have significant consequences
Meaning: if Trump wins he'll launch nuclear missiles immediately.
That's why I want him to win, it'll give the hand wringers something else to fret about.
Well if Trump has a hissy fit and nukes Moscow and Beijing I would imagine winding up the handwringers will be the last thing on your mind
Yes I can picture it now, Ivana burns the toast one morning and in a fit of pique Trump nukes Moscow and Beijing.
Come on Donald, you can do it, you're a nutter but the couple of days you have as president before Armageddon will be worth it.
It seems unlikely. For a start, surely the White House is packed to the rafters with chefs who can make toast.
Plus Ivana was dumped for a newer model several models ago.
Fair play to Donald, I'm beginning to like him even more
He said he'd be dating Ivanka, if she wasn't his daughter.
That's really quite a disturbing comment
I said it before: She'll be 35 days before the election - old enough to be VP....
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
But if those on the Left didn't react so hysterically to Trump like a pantomime baddie he probably wouldn't be so outrageous, nor doing so well.
There's something refreshing and satisfying to many that goes with him breaking just about every political taboo there is, coupled with they don't respect those politicians and commentators who are most offended by it.
It seems odd that anybody would warm to someone aspiring for the most powerful job on the planet just because it pisses off some people you don't like.
Why? That's certainly not uncommon amongst the Left and "the rich".
My comments apply to all regardless of politics. It just seems really stupid to base your opinions on what would annoy a set of people you disagree with.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
Maybe a Trump presidency would not affect you much but a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button and in charge of the most powerful military on the planet could certainly have significant consequences
Meaning: if Trump wins he'll launch nuclear missiles immediately.
That's why I want him to win, it'll give the hand wringers something else to fret about.
You really think that the US military would go ahead with a nuclear attack on the whim of a President? Utterly barking.
Errrh if you read the thread you'll see it's others fretting over Donald nuking Moscow and Beijing. I'm more concerned with his breakfast.
Is there any chance whatever that Dave will complete his rounds of Euro persuasion efforts, come up empty, and decide that he will actually then join the Out camp? If he had a public epiphany and said 'I was in favour of remaining but have become persuaded that there is no political flexibility to move away from 'Ever Closer' so on balance I think it is better to leave and control our own destiny. I have always said I would take this view if my renegotiation efforts were frustrated and I intend to keep my word'.
He'd be a hero in his own party and would then win the referendum.
Or am I just fantasising?
You are fantasising.
I fantasised about a Tory majority when all said that was never going to happen. I fantasised about Corbyn leading Labour when that seemed outrageously off-the-wall. I've learned politics is becoming more unpredictable as voters get more pissed off with entrenched elites and the status quo. Dreams can and do come true. (Let's hope the Donald chooses Palin as his running mate - MSNBC would melt!).
The primary reason economic inactivity is falling is because fewer people are retired between 16 and 64.
But maybe we should start targeting employment up to 68 in line with the pension age. After all the whole point of extending the pension age is to keep 65 year olds in work.
Casino- I don't think Patrick is far wrong. Cameron is clearly a pragmatist. He knows, like we all do, that the renegotiation is just bullshit, designed only to please his Eurosceptics.
Cameron doesn't want to be the person to lose a European vote which will only to lead to constitutional chaos and investor panic. Initially, he will only hold the vote if he knows he is going to win.
But, if uncertainty about the outcome prevails, and time looms on and we go on into 2017, and then it becomes increasingly clear he'll lose, he'll jump ship, and try and make the best of a very bad lot and support an out campaign. Cameron wants to be on the winning side after all. That is the nature of a pragmatist.
Is there any chance whatever that Dave will complete his rounds of Euro persuasion efforts, come up empty, and decide that he will actually then join the Out camp? If he had a public epiphany and said 'I was in favour of remaining but have become persuaded that there is no political flexibility to move away from 'Ever Closer' so on balance I think it is better to leave and control our own destiny. I have always said I would take this view if my renegotiation efforts were frustrated and I intend to keep my word'.
He'd be a hero in his own party and would then win the referendum.
@ONS · 1m1 minute ago #Unemployment rate 5.2% for Aug-Oct 2015, down from 6.0% a year earlier http://ow.ly/VXHkE
@ONS · 20s21 seconds ago #Employment rate 73.9% for Aug-Oct 2015, highest since records began in 1971 http://ow.ly/VXHyK
And Corbyn is still talking about the need for People's QE to 'kickstart the economy'.
Corbynistas should be fighting the battle for national relevance instead they are infighting the battle to extinguish the last vestiges of Blairism and all his works and followers.
The Conservative government holds the field of battle with ease and the rest are involved in minor skirmishes at the edges.
I'm not sure most Corbynistas even know where the edge of the battlefield is, Jack. Is it down the pub?
I see that clown Charles is meddling in politics, as a monarchist I've long been concerned about this plant talking nut job. His mother must be doing all she can to outlive him.
If you are a monarchist then you should accept the heir to the throne being kept in the picture. The genetic lottery and line to the throne is intrinsic to monarchy.
One thing we should copy from Europe is retirement of the monarch, or we are going to always have a gerontocracy.
The reason I'm a monarchist is because our head of state is apolitical, Charles should not interfere or be seen to be interfering.
Tte papers.
For HMQ .
The.
Times move on, Jack.
Young man enjoys night out shocker !!
You make my point for me, Jack.
George III and George IV and William for that matter were involved in the governing of the country to a far greater extent than Charles or William are today.
The monarchy today are titular heads and we swear allegiance to them and long may it last.
If The Queen, or Charles after her, were to mimic a hundredth of the political activity of George III we would be in strange territory indeed. But of course they would never dream of it and hence the audience with the PM has likewise become an anachronism.
The Prime Minister's audience of the Queen is most certainly not an "anachronism". Even allowing for an element of reverence and hyperbole all of the Queen's twelve Prime Minister's have indicated that they valued her breadth of knowledge, her wise counsel and advice.
In addition the Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England in which roles she is also able to bring forth a wealth of experience.
Notwithstanding the above surely it is better to have available such counsel to the Prime Minister than not, even if the Queen's First Lord of the Treasury may choose to ignore it, as is his right?
Not really a surprise. Obama clearly admires Cameron, and Miliband's breach of faith on the 2013 Syria vote will have convinced the US administration that he was not someone to be trusted - a point I and others made at the time.
Miss Plato, I think Corbyn's just bloody stupid. Any man who has to think about whether or not killing terrorists about to commit an atrocity is a good idea must have a hollow head.
Now it is narrowed down to "about to commit an atrocity" which is of course not what "shoot to kill" is normally taken to mean, which is to kill rather than arrest and try suspects. As Theresa May reminded us, that is illegal. That said, Corbyn should have had the common sense to realise his words would be twisted.
3% was never going to last. If it falls <2% i.e. further still, then that would be cause for concern.</p>
It's astonishing that as the labour market tightens, wages should be so subdued. Of all the aspects of Britain's economic recovery from the great recession, the employment market is the most mysterious.
Not really a surprise. Obama clearly admires Cameron, and Miliband's breach of faith on the 2013 Syria vote will have convinced the US administration that he was not someone to be trusted - a point I and others made at the time.
Isn't (or wasn't) David Cameron's erstwhile guru Steve Hilton also tied up with the Democrats?
Earnings will be rising more quickly over the next couple of years, though, both because of the tightening labour market and because of Osborne's big hike to the minimum wage.
@George_Osborne: Excellent stats this morning: a record employment rate (73.9%), unemployment & youth unemployment rates fall to 9 year lows & wages rising
3% was never going to last. If it falls <2% i.e. further still, then that would be cause for concern.</p>
It's astonishing that as the labour market tightens, wages should be so subdued. Of all the aspects of Britain's economic recovery from the great recession, the employment market is the most mysterious.
Yes, given we would expect an increase in number of hours worked.
If it weren't for that, I think real pay increases of 2-3% are not uncommon even at a time of rising employment (assuming we haven't yet exhausted capacity completely).
Prosperity is a thing of the past. People in crappy jobs, for crappy money, working longer and indebted.
By the way I no more blame the Tories than Labour for this poor state of affairs. The attachment to neo liberal capitalism from the mid 1970's onwards was always going to catch up with us, and leave the UK as a place with high employment built on shit productivity, and shit wages.
3% was never going to last. If it falls <2% i.e. further still, then that would be cause for concern.</p>
It's astonishing that as the labour market tightens, wages should be so subdued. Of all the aspects of Britain's economic recovery from the great recession, the employment market is the most mysterious.
I suspect that a combination of rising tax free incomes and plummeting mortgage costs has been the key to reducing the need for gross pay rises.
A reduction in tax credits and a rise in interest rates will start to change the dynamic.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
Who would be the ideal candidate?
I don't think there's an *ideal* libertarian candidate in the field (or, possibly, the world) but Rand Paul would be a suggestion.
My point is that Trump is an anti-libertarian. He's an authoritarian weirdo. Libertarians don't build walls across continents to stop people moving around.
It's not Alistair when you take into account poor productivity, weak contracts, more people working for themselves and paying themselves a pittance, the squeeze on public employees pay- it is truly wondrous that we have any wage growth at all. One thing is for certain- wage growth in the UK will be weak for a generation to come. 80's, 90's and naughties prosperity is a thing of the past.
3% was never going to last. If it falls <2% i.e. further still, then that would be cause for concern.</p>
It's astonishing that as the labour market tightens, wages should be so subdued. Of all the aspects of Britain's economic recovery from the great recession, the employment market is the most mysterious.
I see that clown Charles is meddling in politics, as a monarchist I've long been concerned about this plant talking nut job. His mother must be doing all she can to outlive him.
If you are a monarchist then you should accept the heir to the throne being kept in the picture. The genetic lottery and line to the throne is intrinsic to monarchy.
One thing we should copy from Europe is retirement of the monarch, or we are going to always have a gerontocracy.
The reason I'm a monarchist is because our head of state is apolitical, Charles should not interfere or be seen to be interfering.
Tte papers.
For HMQ .
The.
Times move on, Jack.
Young man enjoys night out shocker !!
You make my point for me, Jack. chronism.
The Prime Minister's audience of the Queen is most certainly not an "anachronism". Even allowing for an element of reverence and hyperbole all of the Queen's twelve Prime Minister's have indicated that they valued her breadth of knowledge, her wise counsel and advice.
In addition the Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England in which role she is also able to bring forth a wealth of experience.
Notwithstanding the above surely it is better to have available such counsel to the Prime Minister than not, even if the Queen's First Lord of the Treasury may choose to ignore it, as is his right?
Like much of the monarchy it works although if you were asked to sketch it out from scratch you probably wouldn't end up with what we've got now.
But it works, I have zero issue with that.
Nor do I have a problem with a PM seeking counsel from The Queen or indeed any wise old soul (no offence..). But we are coming up to an epochal change, although hopefully not for many years yet. At this stage, it would be right to consider whether tweaks could be made. One tweak might be the weekly audience.
We mentioned times change and how the monarchy is seeking to become more "normal". One small example will suffice. The Prince of Wales presides over a successful-ish business (Duchy Originals, profitable since a tie up with Waitrose). He runs this business for all the best reasons, but he is a businessman.
Do we really think a businessman with, by definition, a vested interest in policy, should be giving counsel to the PM on anything and do we think that Charles' thinking is as independent as The Queen's is today?
Do you think the Guardian is an example of our "gloriously unfree media", Nick?
Serious reply FWIW: I wouldn't say unfree, but yes, it shares in the general crapness of our media compared with e.g. the German and even the US media. It is very difficult to get a serious discussion in the UK media - they always focus on a sensational trivial remark from an otherwise interesting interview (the "stab him from the front" example that he gives is a good one) or they start from the position "I'm going to try to persuade readers of a point of view" (Ambrose Evans and Polly Toynbee are examples). The sort of "I'm going to explain the situation and set out the pros and cons" piece that you get in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, the Neue Zuercher Zeitung or even the Washington Post almost doesn't happen in Britain. We think it's boring and deride it.
The effect is that politicians become extremely defensive - the main priority in an interview is to get one line across and not screw up with some comment that can be taken out of context. The victim is the level of public debate, which is seriously awful.
The sorts of articles you are talking about, Nick, do exist but they tend to be found in magazines and some of the better blogs.
One of the problems, though, is that politicians are not at all keen on having the facts ferreted out. Your own current hero, Corbyn, has complained about journalists digging out facts about what he has / has not done and has and has not said. This is quite different from complaints about the opinions expressed about such facts.
So if the media is "crap" as you say politicians have something to do with it. One reason why we may focus on throwaway comments is that they do their level best to avoid us having facts. Beams and motes, Nick. Beams and motes.
'What odds are you offering on your suggestion of the referendum being cancelled ?'
For the avoidance of doubt, what I suggested was that if the polls turned strongly towards Leave that is what the FO and the EU would push for - not that it was something likely to happen.
There is of course a further possibility - that the UK is asked to vote again on a slightly less homeopathic 'renegotiation' package after voting 'Leave' initially.
3% was never going to last. If it falls <2% i.e. further still, then that would be cause for concern.</p>
It's astonishing that as the labour market tightens, wages should be so subdued. Of all the aspects of Britain's economic recovery from the great recession, the employment market is the most mysterious.
The labour market is hardy tightening when about 300,000 new people are being added to it each year.
As new jobs are being created so new people are arriving to do them. The result is wages stay flatter than they would otherwise be, investment doesn't happen because it is cheaper to employ people than spend money on machines and innovation, productivity stagnates and, although the economy grows, actual wealth stagnates but becomes more concentrated in the hands of the already wealthy.
We mentioned times change and how the monarchy is seeking to become more "normal". One small example will suffice. The Prince of Wales presides over a successful-ish business (Duchy Originals, profitable since a tie up with Waitrose). He runs this business for all the best reasons, but he is a businessman.
Do we really think a businessman with, by definition, a vested interest in policy, should be giving counsel to the PM on anything and do we think that Charles' thinking is as independent as The Queen's is today?
It's a bit of a stretch to say he's a 'businessman with.. a vested interest in policy'. He's not involved in running the business (Waitrose runs it), and he has no financial interest in it:
Duchy Originals Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary company of The Prince's Charities Foundation and donates to the charity from its profits.
I hope Trump wins, I don't like him much but my life won't change whoever wins and the reaction of the bedwetters will be hilarious.
If you are serious about your libertarianism you really shouldn't want Trump to win.
Who would be the ideal candidate?
I don't think there's an *ideal* libertarian candidate in the field (or, possibly, the world) but Rand Paul would be a suggestion.
My point is that Trump is an anti-libertarian. He's an authoritarian weirdo. Libertarians don't build walls across continents to stop people moving around.
Yes I take your point and I've read about Rand Paul.
Being libertarian, like every other label, is open to interpretation, immigration has to be controlled in countries that pay higher benefits than others. The first (I might argue only) role of govt is to protect it's citizens, a large part of that is border security. There are people who don't agree with our idea of civilisation and wish to harm us, the govt's role is to prevent that happening. That isn't at odds with being libertarian.
What is at odds is discrimination along lines of nationality or religion.
A para military force for the EU to cross member states' borders. Will this be one of Dave's cast iron opt outs?
Err, you do realise we're not in Schengen?
Even if we are not, I'm not comfortable with a supranational EU border force, are you?
It's a Schengen border force. If the Schengen countries want that, that's up to them. They need to do something to deal with the mess they've created. I don't know whether it requires unanimous consent of the Schengen countries, but I imagine it does.
There is, however, an interesting UK angle to this: this is a Commission proposal, eliding the EU with Schengen. It's similar to the problem of Commission proposals eliding the EU with the Eurozone. This is a major structural flaw in the EU institutions, and to my mind the key issue of the renegotiation.
@Kevin_Maguire: Ever wonder why Michael Gove looks so glum? Headline on wife Sarah Vine's Mail column: "Sorry chaps but women love sleep FAR more than sex!"
So do men.
But I see that she's been scheduling sex. This is called "doing it wrong".
The older I've got, the more I view sleep now as I did sex in my youth.
You should have seen me last night, I was at it for six straight hours.
I think you're dancing on a pinhead, albeit most dexterously. Perhaps a spot on "Strictly Come PB Dancing" beckons?!?
The income and business activities of the Duchy of Cornwall have been evolving for centuries and I don't think many subjects regarded the Queen as some thrusting Alan Sugar figure when she ascended the throne. That the Duchy of Cornwall has branched out at the margin is hardly a move into the FT100.
When the Prince of Wales succeeds his "interests" will be subsumed into a cloak of mystery that befits the monarch. The media may speculate and the people may wonder but we will never know for certain the discussions and most recent views of the new King.
At this time the King will take on the role of his mother and his son that which his father fulfilled as Prince of Wales and so on and so forth down the centuries.
Interesting article that I mostly disagree with (mainly because I think it sees things too much through a prism of past society), but others here will like - it's worth thinking about whether one agrees or not:
A para military force for the EU to cross member states' borders. Will this be one of Dave's cast iron opt outs?
Err, you do realise we're not in Schengen?
Even if we are not, I'm not comfortable with a supranational EU border force, are you?
It's a Schengen border force. If the Schengen countries want that, that's up to them. They need to do something to deal with the mess they've created. I don't know whether it requires unanimous consent of the Schengen countries, but I imagine it does.
There is, however, an interesting UK angle to this: this is a Commission proposal, eliding the EU with Schengen. It's similar to the problem of Commission proposals eliding the EU with the Eurozone. This is a major structural flaw in the EU institutions, and to my mind the key issue of the renegotiation.
Perhaps they'll station some of the force at Calais
@Kevin_Maguire: Ever wonder why Michael Gove looks so glum? Headline on wife Sarah Vine's Mail column: "Sorry chaps but women love sleep FAR more than sex!"
So do men.
But I see that she's been scheduling sex. This is called "doing it wrong".
The older I've got, the more I view sleep now as I did sex in my youth.
You should have seen me last night, I was at it for six straight hours.
I must say, I tend to the opposite view.
But that's enough about Paris.......
Madam! There are gentleman of a certain age present here on this website and posts like that will not help their health.
The survey found that the “Stay” campaign has a clear lead of 53 per cent to 36 per cent, with 11 per cent don’t knows.
Excluding the don’t knows, the verdict is currently 60-40 to stay in. However, the gap has narrowed dramatically from the emphatic 69-31 seen by Ipsos MORI in June, which means neither side dare relax.
Opinion is split over whether to let 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the referendum, an idea fought over in the House of Lords.
People’s answers appeared to depend on how the question was asked. When asked if the voting age should be reduced to 16, some 56 per cent opposed and 37 per cent supported.
But asking the question in terms of “giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote”, the results flipped to 52 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.
Opinion is split over whether to let 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the referendum, an idea fought over in the House of Lords.
People’s answers appeared to depend on how the question was asked. When asked if the voting age should be reduced to 16, some 56 per cent opposed and 37 per cent supported.
But asking the question in terms of “giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote”, the results flipped to 52 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.
Perhaps we should deny the vote to people who think there's a difference between the two questions.
Opinion is split over whether to let 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the referendum, an idea fought over in the House of Lords.
People’s answers appeared to depend on how the question was asked. When asked if the voting age should be reduced to 16, some 56 per cent opposed and 37 per cent supported.
But asking the question in terms of “giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote”, the results flipped to 52 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.
Perhaps we should deny the vote to people who think there's a difference between the two questions.
That'll be the same % who vote in or out according to what Dave says ?
I'm just very pleased this nonsense has been kicked into touch again. The Times leader got universally panned yesterday as obvious gerrymandering for Remain.
Opinion is split over whether to let 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the referendum, an idea fought over in the House of Lords.
People’s answers appeared to depend on how the question was asked. When asked if the voting age should be reduced to 16, some 56 per cent opposed and 37 per cent supported.
But asking the question in terms of “giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote”, the results flipped to 52 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.
Perhaps we should deny the vote to people who think there's a difference between the two questions.
I'm in favour of us sending some troops to patrol the EU border tbh, and I'll be voting out. Even when we're out it's still a preliminary first line of border security for us.
Take it out the foreign aid budget though, it serves what should be the same purpose - protecting Britain's interests abroad.
Comments
Look at how George III sons behaved and were reported to behave. Up market London brothels, courtesans and mistresses were the order of the day and titled bastard children were a plenty. "Times move on" is certainly true and the nature of monarchy has been a successful story of evolution.
However the monarch's direct involvement with the Prime Minister of the day remains the same, as indeed it should. It is a typically British compromise and works well. The Queen reigns and her Prime Minister governs.
The Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and in time Prince William will be Prince of Wales and succeed his father. Simon Cowell and his tight trousers and followers do not determine the succession.
There's something refreshing and satisfying to many that goes with him breaking just about every political taboo there is, coupled with they don't respect those politicians and commentators who are most offended by it.
Young people in work or full-time education is the highest on record #getbritainworking https://t.co/tSV1MCzepL
That's 85.8%
It's not 2008. I know he's snug in 1983, but who does he think he's talking to today?
They deny the economic recovery, they deny the meaning of electoral results, they deny public opinion on certain issues and they deny the forty year rejection of the left.
"It is time for the People's Free Friday Doughnut!"
"We must have the People's Double Pay Wednesday!"
"It is imperative we have the People's Resignation of Jeremy Corbyn!"
Miss Plato, I think Corbyn's just bloody stupid. Any man who has to think about whether or not killing terrorists about to commit an atrocity is a good idea must have a hollow head.
The stars are starting to align for the tories, big time.
City AM is constantly moaning about huge skill shortages.
If wages start to spike for young professionals then the tories may even start to do better in London, especially if property prices stall.
The Conservative government holds the field of battle with ease and the rest are involved in minor skirmishes at the edges.
(Although if the alternative was Hillary Clinton, I'd be really struggling.)
Let's negotiate with Daesh! Let's abolish the nuclear deterrent! Let's disband the army! WHat's that, Mao? Yes, good idea, let's disarm the police and disband MI5!
George III and George IV and William for that matter were involved in the governing of the country to a far greater extent than Charles or William are today.
The monarchy today are titular heads and we swear allegiance to them and long may it last.
If The Queen, or Charles after her, were to mimic a hundredth of the political activity of George III we would be in strange territory indeed. But of course they would never dream of it and hence the audience with the PM has likewise become an anachronism.
https://www.rt.com/news/326084-erdem-rt-interview-treason/
Tweet of the year. https://t.co/TSb9vewGfI
It just seems really stupid to base your opinions on what would annoy a set of people you disagree with.
People working full-time up 338k on the year and people working part-time up 167k on the year @ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2015/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-1--Employment …
@ONSRichardClegg · 39m39 minutes ago
2.3 unemployed people per vacancy for Aug-Oct 2015, down from 2.8 a year earlier @ONS
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2015/statistical-bulletin.html …
@ONSRichardClegg · 6m6 minutes ago
Richard Clegg Retweeted ONS
Public sector employment accounts for 17.1% of all people in employment - lowest percentage on record
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/677071550311481344
(Let's hope the Donald chooses Palin as his running mate - MSNBC would melt!).
But maybe we should start targeting employment up to 68 in line with the pension age. After all the whole point of extending the pension age is to keep 65 year olds in work.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWVyfgbW4AAkWUK.jpg
Cameron doesn't want to be the person to lose a European vote which will only to lead to constitutional chaos and investor panic. Initially, he will only hold the vote if he knows he is going to win.
But, if uncertainty about the outcome prevails, and time looms on and we go on into 2017, and then it becomes increasingly clear he'll lose, he'll jump ship, and try and make the best of a very bad lot and support an out campaign. Cameron wants to be on the winning side after all. That is the nature of a pragmatist.
Anna Turley MP
Sadly I have had to cancel my surgery on Friday due to a a threat & will not jeopardise safety of staff or constituents. Very sad.
In addition the Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England in which roles she is also able to bring forth a wealth of experience.
Notwithstanding the above surely it is better to have available such counsel to the Prime Minister than not, even if the Queen's First Lord of the Treasury may choose to ignore it, as is his right?
Another 90,000 jobs were created in the last month in the UK: 94% of them full-time.
Earnings will be rising more quickly over the next couple of years, though, both because of the tightening labour market and because of Osborne's big hike to the minimum wage.
CON: 62.0% (+6.1)
UKIP: 13.0% (-5.4)
LDEM: 11.1% (-0.8)
LAB: 8.9% (-4.8)
GRN: 4.9% (+4.9)
@George_Osborne: Excellent stats this morning: a record employment rate (73.9%), unemployment & youth unemployment rates fall to 9 year lows & wages rising
If it weren't for that, I think real pay increases of 2-3% are not uncommon even at a time of rising employment (assuming we haven't yet exhausted capacity completely).
By the way I no more blame the Tories than Labour for this poor state of affairs. The attachment to neo liberal capitalism from the mid 1970's onwards was always going to catch up with us, and leave the UK as a place with high employment built on shit productivity, and shit wages.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-6346_en.htm
A para military force for the EU to cross member states' borders. Will this be one of Dave's cast iron opt outs?
A reduction in tax credits and a rise in interest rates will start to change the dynamic.
My point is that Trump is an anti-libertarian. He's an authoritarian weirdo. Libertarians don't build walls across continents to stop people moving around.
Construction 6.1%
Retail/hospitality 3.3%
Services 2.3%
Finance/Business 1.8%
Public Sector 1.6%
Manufacturing 1.5%
But it works, I have zero issue with that.
Nor do I have a problem with a PM seeking counsel from The Queen or indeed any wise old soul (no offence..). But we are coming up to an epochal change, although hopefully not for many years yet. At this stage, it would be right to consider whether tweaks could be made. One tweak might be the weekly audience.
We mentioned times change and how the monarchy is seeking to become more "normal". One small example will suffice. The Prince of Wales presides over a successful-ish business (Duchy Originals, profitable since a tie up with Waitrose). He runs this business for all the best reasons, but he is a businessman.
Do we really think a businessman with, by definition, a vested interest in policy, should be giving counsel to the PM on anything and do we think that Charles' thinking is as independent as The Queen's is today?
The sorts of articles you are talking about, Nick, do exist but they tend to be found in magazines and some of the better blogs.
One of the problems, though, is that politicians are not at all keen on having the facts ferreted out. Your own current hero, Corbyn, has complained about journalists digging out facts about what he has / has not done and has and has not said. This is quite different from complaints about the opinions expressed about such facts.
So if the media is "crap" as you say politicians have something to do with it. One reason why we may focus on throwaway comments is that they do their level best to avoid us having facts. Beams and motes, Nick. Beams and motes.
For the avoidance of doubt, what I suggested was that if the polls turned strongly towards Leave that is what the FO and the EU would push for - not that it was something likely to happen.
There is of course a further possibility - that the UK is asked to vote again on a slightly less homeopathic 'renegotiation' package after voting 'Leave' initially.
As new jobs are being created so new people are arriving to do them. The result is wages stay flatter than they would otherwise be, investment doesn't happen because it is cheaper to employ people than spend money on machines and innovation, productivity stagnates and, although the economy grows, actual wealth stagnates but becomes more concentrated in the hands of the already wealthy.
Duchy Originals Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary company of The Prince's Charities Foundation and donates to the charity from its profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic
Being libertarian, like every other label, is open to interpretation, immigration has to be controlled in countries that pay higher benefits than others. The first (I might argue only) role of govt is to protect it's citizens, a large part of that is border security. There are people who don't agree with our idea of civilisation and wish to harm us, the govt's role is to prevent that happening. That isn't at odds with being libertarian.
What is at odds is discrimination along lines of nationality or religion.
There is, however, an interesting UK angle to this: this is a Commission proposal, eliding the EU with Schengen. It's similar to the problem of Commission proposals eliding the EU with the Eurozone. This is a major structural flaw in the EU institutions, and to my mind the key issue of the renegotiation.
But that's enough about Paris.......
I think you're dancing on a pinhead, albeit most dexterously. Perhaps a spot on "Strictly Come PB Dancing" beckons?!?
The income and business activities of the Duchy of Cornwall have been evolving for centuries and I don't think many subjects regarded the Queen as some thrusting Alan Sugar figure when she ascended the throne. That the Duchy of Cornwall has branched out at the margin is hardly a move into the FT100.
When the Prince of Wales succeeds his "interests" will be subsumed into a cloak of mystery that befits the monarch. The media may speculate and the people may wonder but we will never know for certain the discussions and most recent views of the new King.
At this time the King will take on the role of his mother and his son that which his father fulfilled as Prince of Wales and so on and so forth down the centuries.
Anti devolutionist slags devolved parliament, quelle surprise.
You need to get with the Yoon programme - 'We have to make devolution stronger and better!'
http://labourlist.org/2015/12/what-does-labour-stand-for-when-it-is-no-longer-the-party-of-the-working-class/
This seems like a very poor idea.
CON 38 -3
LAB 31 -3
LD 9 +2
UKIP 9 +2
Excluding the don’t knows, the verdict is currently 60-40 to stay in. However, the gap has narrowed dramatically from the emphatic 69-31 seen by Ipsos MORI in June, which means neither side dare relax.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/fewer-than-a-fifth-think-pm-can-meet-eu-reform-goals-a3138481.html
People’s answers appeared to depend on how the question was asked. When asked if the voting age should be reduced to 16, some 56 per cent opposed and 37 per cent supported.
But asking the question in terms of “giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote”, the results flipped to 52 per cent in favour and 41 per cent opposed.
I'm just very pleased this nonsense has been kicked into touch again. The Times leader got universally panned yesterday as obvious gerrymandering for Remain.
Take it out the foreign aid budget though, it serves what should be the same purpose - protecting Britain's interests abroad.
Indy Voices
We did it for the USSR - now it's time to grant Isis diplomatic recognition https://t.co/BC0px06tge
ii) EU does something to try and deal with it
iii) People in i) Complain about the EU trying to do something with the migration crisis
The EU can't win. Remember the EU won a Nobel Peace Prize, they know how to keep the peace.