I used to dream of having pineapple on pizza. Would've been like a twelve course meal to us. But I had to make do without pineapple. Or pizza. I used to have to gnaw on what I could scavenge from the neighbour's dustbin.
Pineapple on pizza, that's not a dream, that's a nightmare.
Seems a bit overblown in truth. The principal objection being it rewards adultery? Being adulterous is a major personal failing but in normal circumstances doesn't effect anybody else, so the question is what harm arises from Camille being called queen rather than princess consort, since royal figures have more public impact. Other than it making Charles happier I'm struggling to see what difference it would make. Even if not done they're still 'rewarded' for their adultery, not allowing it won't change that.
Unless the line had been drawn that he couldn't marry her, I don't see how sustained objection to what he calls her would work. That line was crossed, it's too late now.
@JackW will know better than me, but I believe that Charles and Camilla's wedding was morganatic (are you sure she is Princess of Wales - I've always called her the Duchess of Cornwall). That means there'd need to be an Act of Parliament to make her Queen.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the proposed marriage of HRH Prince of Wales to Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles is morganatic. [222341]
I used to dream of having pineapple on pizza. Would've been like a twelve course meal to us. But I had to make do without pineapple. Or pizza. I used to have to gnaw on what I could scavenge from the neighbour's dustbin.
Pineapple on pizza, that's not a dream, that's a nightmare.
My wife likes pineapple on pizza. I like extra chillies. Each to their own.
Seems a bit overblown in truth. The principal objection being it rewards adultery? Being adulterous is a major personal failing but in normal circumstances doesn't effect anybody else, so the question is what harm arises from Camille being called queen rather than princess consort, since royal figures have more public impact. Other than it making Charles happier I'm struggling to see what difference it would make. Even if not done they're still 'rewarded' for their adultery, not allowing it won't change that.
Unless the line had been drawn that he couldn't marry her, I don't see how sustained objection to what he calls her would work. That line was crossed, it's too late now.
@JackW will know better than me, but I believe that Charles and Camilla's wedding was morganatic (are you sure she is Princess of Wales - I've always called her the Duchess of Cornwall). That means there'd need to be an Act of Parliament to make her Queen.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the proposed marriage of HRH Prince of Wales to Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles is morganatic. [222341]
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]
Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales but will not use the title.
Seems a bit overblown in truth. The principal objection being it rewards adultery? Being adulterous is a major personal failing but in normal circumstances doesn't effect anybody else, so the question is what harm arises from Camille being called queen rather than princess consort, since royal figures have more public impact. Other than it making Charles happier I'm struggling to see what difference it would make. Even if not done they're still 'rewarded' for their adultery, not allowing it won't change that.
Unless the line had been drawn that he couldn't marry her, I don't see how sustained objection to what he calls her would work. That line was crossed, it's too late now.
@JackW will know better than me, but I believe that Charles and Camilla's wedding was morganatic (are you sure she is Princess of Wales - I've always called her the Duchess of Cornwall). That means there'd need to be an Act of Parliament to make her Queen.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the proposed marriage of HRH Prince of Wales to Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles is morganatic. [222341]
Mr. Leslie: No.
She’s definitely not Princess of Wales.
She is, but she doesn't use the title.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050404/text/50404w42.htm Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]
Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales but will not use the title.
Seems a bit overblown in truth. The principal objection being it rewards adultery? Being adulterous is a major personal failing but in normal circumstances doesn't effect anybody else, so the question is what harm arises from Camille being called queen rather than princess consort, since royal figures have more public impact. Other than it making Charles happier I'm struggling to see what difference it would make. Even if not done they're still 'rewarded' for their adultery, not allowing it won't change that.
Unless the line had been drawn that he couldn't marry her, I don't see how sustained objection to what he calls her would work. That line was crossed, it's too late now.
@JackW will know better than me, but I believe that Charles and Camilla's wedding was morganatic (are you sure she is Princess of Wales - I've always called her the Duchess of Cornwall). That means there'd need to be an Act of Parliament to make her Queen.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the proposed marriage of HRH Prince of Wales to Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles is morganatic. [222341]
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]
Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales but will not use the title.
In my opinion, Brexit was the wrong answer to the right question about how to deal with globalisation. Unfortunately we will be dealing with the fallout from the false assumptions behind Brexit and won't be tackling those issues including globalisaton, constitutional stresses on the UK and the the inbalance of our economy, that have just got a lot harder for us to deal with. I have little doubt we will lose a decade or more because of this.
I would look to China, a country I have known very well for most of my life. Not because they have all the answers but because they are seeking answers themselves. They have learnt a lot from the West and been very successful as a result of it. Ask yourselves, what have we learnt from China in that time? Almost nothing.
..."there will always be the proles" as someone said in 1984. Some of the language used by those talking about the "disaffected working class" reminds me of the language of 1984 used by the Outer Party members looking at the rest of Oceania.
I've argued since 23/6/16 the decision to LEAVE the EU was the start of an opportunity to have the substantive debate about the kind of country, society, economy and people we want to be in the 2020s and beyond. Understandably, given the content and tone of the Referendum debate itself, it's now the case most people would rather do almost anything else than think about the big national questions but they haven't gone away and A50 will throw them again into sharp focus.
Immigration is where all these questions meet - the economic requirement for a growing labour force has collided with the cultural and societal consequences. There are people who frankly don't want to live with people of different skin colours and creeds who in their eyes make no effort to integrate. There are others who fear the large-scale influx of economic migrants has turned their neighbourhood into a Little Warsaw or a Little Bucharest.
A more relevant concern could be the impact on existing infrastructure ...[SNIPPED for wordcount] ...but can't happen overnight.
That sense of Governmental and planning failure has accentuated alienation among the indigenous population, many of whom might themselves have been migrants....[SNIPPED] ... Parties who recognise the symptoms but have no plausible remedy are attracting support while those trying to offer a more tolerant line are ignored and ridiculed.
Yet it's not just about immigration - it's deeper than that. It's almost as though belief in the capitalist ideal of prosperity and improvement through hard work has been damaged perhaps by the events of 2008 as much as by anything else. The sense many have of running hard to simply stand still is debilitating and worse when there seems no prospect of improvement. The political and economic crises are interlinked but as for a solution - I've none to offer.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
"A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years. The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."
Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”
This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark's blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity....
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
•The net migration confidence interval (that is the uncertainty around the estimate due to it being based on a sample survey) is calculated using both the confidence intervals for immigration and emigration. This results in a relatively large confidence interval around the net migration estimate. The confidence interval around the change in net migration from one year to the next will also be relatively large as it will be based on the confidence intervals around the 2 net migration estimates. Therefore, for a change in net migration to be statistically significant the actual observed change in net migration would also need to be large to account for the relatively large confidence intervals.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Hardly practical.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
King Cole, tarpaulin? Would've been like the Palace of Versailles to us. We had to live in a broken kennel wi' a hole in the roof. Had to stay awake all night just to stop the rats from attacking us.
Miss Plato, we'll see what the jury makes of it. Denmark seems less demented than Sweden/Germany when it comes to such things.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Hardly practical.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
No more and no less than the wife of the PoW is the PessoW.
"A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years. The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."
Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”
This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark's blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity....
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
•The net migration confidence interval (that is the uncertainty around the estimate due to it being based on a sample survey) is calculated using both the confidence intervals for immigration and emigration. This results in a relatively large confidence interval around the net migration estimate. The confidence interval around the change in net migration from one year to the next will also be relatively large as it will be based on the confidence intervals around the 2 net migration estimates. Therefore, for a change in net migration to be statistically significant the actual observed change in net migration would also need to be large to account for the relatively large confidence intervals.
Further down...
The net migration estimate (the difference between immigration and emigration) for the year ending (YE) September 2016 is +273,000 and has a 95% confidence interval of +/-41,000, compared with +322,000 (+/-37,000) in YE September 2015. This difference was not statistically significant. This is however the lowest recorded net migration estimate since YE June 2014.
Favourite is getting a disconcerting red line underneath.
Favourite works for me, you've managed to turn your computer American!
I don't seem to have a spellcheck. How do a switch that on please?
It is a spellcheck in your browser, and applies to all web sites, not just PB.
You will have to check the instructions for which browser you use.
Cheers. Thouht that might be the case after I made the post. Now to search Firefox
OK I know this isn't a support helpline but Spellchecker is/was on in Firefox, but it is not working. Any ideas? It could be that I never make a speeling mastake.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
We have had (with one obvious exception) a good run with familial chance for the last 175 years. The only positive thing one can say about Charles is that expectations are (deservedly) low so he should struggle to underperform.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
The argument, as I see it, for the hereditary system, is that you accept the occasional imbecile as a price worth paying for having absolutely clear cut succession rules and therefore avoiding civil wars. It's not a very fashionable principle these days where meritocracy, at least nominally, holds sway. (I admit to being cynical about meritocracy, which seems like a post-fact justification: I am top dog - therefore it must have been on merit).
Charles is far from an imbecile. I think he will do OK. The big problem is Queen Elizabeth hanging on for too long. She should retire and the principle of retirement, having been established, means Charles reigns for just a few years until he retires in turn, leaving the way clear for William
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Philip II disinherited Don Carlos. Parliament should do the same with Charles.
Mr. B2, disagree. Look at proportional systems. The government is determined by the political class following the vote, not by the electorate at the ballot box.
As the Netherlands is about to demonstrated admirably. Its likely PVV will get the highest share of the vote, and likely that a coalition of the losers will keep them from any sort of power.
I think you underestimate how voting systems change behaviour.
In a purely proportional system like the Netherlands, you see crazy fragmentation of political parties. The PVV might well 'win' the Dutch election on just 16-17% of the vote, but that's barely more than the combined share of the Greens and The Party of the Animals. The second and third political parties (the VVD and D66) are both members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe. If the voting system was FPTP, would there really be two Green/Environmental parties in parliament? Or would there be two "Liberal" parties? Or would there be two (separate) Calvinist Parties?
There will likely be seven political parties (maybe eight), with more than 10 seats in the Dutch parliament (out of 150). Their whole system, like it or not, is based around allowing people to choose a political party that almost exactly matches their belief set. And then coalitions - of four or five politcal parties - are formed. Whether someone got the most seats is irrelevant to the Dutch, it is whether you can put together a coalition of at least 75 seats out of 150.
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
Favourite is getting a disconcerting red line underneath.
Favourite works for me, you've managed to turn your computer American!
I don't seem to have a spellcheck. How do a switch that on please?
It is a spellcheck in your browser, and applies to all web sites, not just PB.
You will have to check the instructions for which browser you use.
Cheers. Thouht that might be the case after I made the post. Now to search Firefox
OK I know this isn't a support helpline but Spellchecker is/was on in Firefox, but it is not working. Any ideas? It could be that I never make a speeling mastake.
Oh, and IMO 'relative living standards' is as irrelevant as 'relative poverty'.
I agree. Living as I do every day with people in real poverty I have very little time for people whining about their lack of wide screen TV or not having a foreign holiday that year. It doesn't however stop it being a massive political issue, if the UK citizens feel they are worse off than Indian or Chinese citizens in the future, they are going to want to blame someone, and it won't be their own sense of entitlement or laziness that carries the can!
Well quite. Having an iPhone 6 when your friends have iPhone 7s doesn't mean you're living in poverty, no matter what some will try to make us believe.
iPhone 6 v 7 is not a good example here: I'm keeping mine because I like the headphone socket.
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
•The net migration confidence interval (that is the uncertainty around the estimate due to it being based on a sample survey) is calculated using both the confidence intervals for immigration and emigration. This results in a relatively large confidence interval around the net migration estimate. The confidence interval around the change in net migration from one year to the next will also be relatively large as it will be based on the confidence intervals around the 2 net migration estimates. Therefore, for a change in net migration to be statistically significant the actual observed change in net migration would also need to be large to account for the relatively large confidence intervals.
Further down...
The net migration estimate (the difference between immigration and emigration) for the year ending (YE) September 2016 is +273,000 and has a 95% confidence interval of +/-41,000, compared with +322,000 (+/-37,000) in YE September 2015. This difference was not statistically significant. This is however the lowest recorded net migration estimate since YE June 2014.
Edit: too late to do simple maths!
So a net change of -49000 ± 55000 (thank you python).
Labour are still 4/7 with Laddies to win Stoke. What better illustrates the Corbyn effect. Under normal circumstances, on polling day, they would be 1/3 or shorter.
A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17. Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
Even if they are, it'd still be a 90%+ (off the top of my head) likelihood of being statistically significant.
Labour are still 4/7 with Laddies to win Stoke. What better illustrates the Corbyn effect. Under normal circumstances, on polling day, they would be 1/3 or shorter.
Its not precise, and it does rely on hindsight but we'll be able to judge those odds better once the result is in !
I think the 4-7 is a bit of a gift still to anyone late to the party.
Mr. B2, disagree. Look at proportional systems. The government is determined by the political class following the vote, not by the electorate at the ballot box.
As the Netherlands is about to demonstrated admirably. Its likely PVV will get the highest share of the vote, and likely that a coalition of the losers will keep them from any sort of power.
I think you underestimate how voting systems change behaviour.
Or would there be two (separate) Calvinist Parties?
Almost certainly! And you’d NEVER get them in the same coalition!
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
We have had (with one obvious exception) a good run with familial chance for the last 175 years. The only positive thing one can say about Charles is that expectations are (deservedly) low so he should struggle to underperform.
I'm not sure expectations of the Prince of Wales are low. The memory of his failed marriage has slowly faded and crucially he and his wife enjoy the private and public support of his popular sons.
Prince Charles isn't that unpopular. I expect he will be a fairly popular king if and when he gets the job. Edward VII is the obvious model.
Edward VIII was a very popular Prince of Wales. But his stodgy awkward younger brother turned out to be made of the right stuff when tested.
I'm wondering if he is getting all of his more controversial statements out of the way before taking the top job. I expect his mother has tried to impress on him the importance of staying out of stuff like that when you are the monarch!
I remember thinking how good the 1990s were at the time, and wondering whether it was too good to last. IIRC 1994 was the year the UK had its highest growth rate in recent times.
1994 had growth per capita of 3.6%, only 2000 with 3.4% has been above 3.0% since then. From 2004 onwards every year has had growth in GDP per capita below 2.5%.
It is worth noting that the same trends are true across the developed world: in the US, in Japan, and in much of Europe.
The exceptions are Germany, Canada and Austalia. Two of those had the benefits of being commodity exporters during a massive commodities boom.
Mr. B2, disagree. Look at proportional systems. The government is determined by the political class following the vote, not by the electorate at the ballot box.
As the Netherlands is about to demonstrated admirably. Its likely PVV will get the highest share of the vote, and likely that a coalition of the losers will keep them from any sort of power.
I think you underestimate how voting systems change behaviour.
Or would there be two (separate) Calvinist Parties?
Almost certainly! And you’d NEVER get them in the same coalition!
You joke, but the Reformed Political Party in the Netherlands (which is one of the two Calvinist Parties) has never - in its 100 year history - been anywhere near a governing coalition. Which is quite an achievement given how the Dutch system works.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Hardly practical.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
As the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess. She has already accepted a lesser title; the precedent is in place.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
Even if they are, it'd still be a 90%+ (off the top of my head) likelihood of being statistically significant.
I make it an 81% probability it was a fall using the confidence intervals given below.
Favourite is getting a disconcerting red line underneath.
Favourite works for me, you've managed to turn your computer American!
I don't seem to have a spellcheck. How do a switch that on please?
It is a spellcheck in your browser, and applies to all web sites, not just PB.
You will have to check the instructions for which browser you use.
Cheers. Thouht that might be the case after I made the post. Now to search Firefox
OK I know this isn't a support helpline but Spellchecker is/was on in Firefox, but it is not working. Any ideas? It could be that I never make a speeling mastake.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
The argument, as I see it, for the hereditary system, is that you accept the occasional imbecile as a price worth paying for having absolutely clear cut succession rules and therefore avoiding civil wars. It's not a very fashionable principle these days where meritocracy, at least nominally, holds sway. (I admit to being cynical about meritocracy, which seems like a post-fact justification: I am top dog - therefore it must have been on merit).
Charles is far from an imbecile. I think he will do OK. The big problem is Queen Elizabeth hanging on for too long. She should retire and the principle of retirement, having been established, means Charles reigns for just a few years until he retires in turn, leaving the way clear for William
We are not a continental monarchy where abdication seems to becoming the norm. The Queen gave her Coronation Oath to serve the nation all the days of her life. It is a responsibility she will not break and neither will her son.
"A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years. The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."
Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”
This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark's blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity....
It is national Labour policy, which they try to insist on in marginals (and no doubt succesfully insist on in by-elections as they're centrlaly run) not to use tellers. We had a stand-up fight over it in Broxtowe in 015 and some branches refused to refrain as they'd always done it. Argument in favour of tellers is that it shows presence, perhaps with a locally-known person likre a councillor. Argument against is that people who turn up at the station know how they'll vote and won't change their mind because they see a teller.
The classic reason was to mark off people who'd voted, so as not to pester them. Nowadays you mark them off when they say they've voted - if the'yre lying, well, they probably won't vote for you whatever you say.
My first experience of elections was Horney in 1966. I was dead keen to impress the sexy girl running the committee room. She sent me to knock up a dozen people who tellers had not recorded as voting. Almost nobody was home, but one, a massive bloke, said very distinctly, "I voted at 8 this morning. You are the FIFTH person to remind me. The next one to call gets my fist on his nose."
I went back and reported it to Gorgeous. "She said, "He's a fucking liar. Go back and ask him again."
A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17. Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
Some of those statistics are quite shocking. 11% of Ohioans are prescribed opiates, one in eight American men has a felony conviction, the actual unemployment rate is four times the official rate and half of those missing are on some sort of disability benefit etc etc.
I find it staggering that Italy has generated more jobs since 1999 (percentage-wise!) than the US.
One of the more depressing PB spats of recent days was about migrants to Sweden, and someone posted a tweet showing employment rates for native born and migrants to Sweden. Migrants had a 62% employment rate, native born about 80%. A problem no doubt, but the US employment rate for native born Americans was just about the same as those migrants in Sweden.
More Americans die from opiate addiction (majority prescription) than from either guns or vehicles. America is a very sick society, with social and geographic mobility declining, drugged up on prescription, obese and staring at screens all day. Or at least part of it is, while the other part works multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Many parts of Britain are similar. I see a bit too much of it in my clinics. As individual patients, I sympathise and treat, but as a culture it worries me.
but isnt that the culture you have voted for ?
It's not as if this happened overnight, it's the cumulation of pretty much the same policies for the last 20 years or so, irrespective of which party was in government.
No, it isn't what I voted for. Over the 35 years since I reached voting age, I have had a government that I voted for for 10 years, the rest one I opposed.
Unfortunately, in a democracy there is no right to vote for a winner.
Which 10 years, incidentally? 1997-2007?
We would however have a better democracy if fewer votes were wasted, and if there were fewer places where voting is effectively pointless.
Nowhere is voting pointless. Every party starts on zero. If seats remain safe for one party, it's because that's what the voters there want (or, at least, because they can't agree on a better alternative).
That's disingenuous. There are many constituencies where the outcome is a foregone conclusion under FPTP.
Like Tatton, Blaenau Gwent, or all of Scotland? When the will to change is there, the result changes. The reason why the result doesn't change is because there is no such will.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
The argument, as I see it, for the hereditary system, is that you accept the occasional imbecile as a price worth paying for having absolutely clear cut succession rules and therefore avoiding civil wars. It's not a very fashionable principle these days where meritocracy, at least nominally, holds sway. (I admit to being cynical about meritocracy, which seems like a post-fact justification: I am top dog - therefore it must have been on merit).
Charles is far from an imbecile. I think he will do OK. The big problem is Queen Elizabeth hanging on for too long. She should retire and the principle of retirement, having been established, means Charles reigns for just a few years until he retires in turn, leaving the way clear for William
We are not a continental monarchy where abdication seems to becoming the norm. The Queen gave her Coronation Oath to serve the nation all the days of her life. It is a responsibility she will not break and neither will her son.
LIke all institutions the Monarchy needs to move with the times and recognise what is best for the country. If QE2 hangs on then then at some point a regent will need to deputise. That's not doing the reputation of the Monarchy or the country any favours.
Mr. B2, disagree. Look at proportional systems. The government is determined by the political class following the vote, not by the electorate at the ballot box.
As the Netherlands is about to demonstrated admirably. Its likely PVV will get the highest share of the vote, and likely that a coalition of the losers will keep them from any sort of power.
I think you underestimate how voting systems change behaviour.
Or would there be two (separate) Calvinist Parties?
Almost certainly! And you’d NEVER get them in the same coalition!
You joke, but the Reformed Political Party in the Netherlands (which is one of the two Calvinist Parties) has never - in its 100 year history - been anywhere near a governing coalition. Which is quite an achievement given how the Dutch system works.
I imagine a Jehovahs Witness or Plymouth Brethren type political party.
As someone with Republican tendencies, I can't wait for Charles to be King.
You're actually French, aren't you?
It has always amused my friends that being one of life's Cavaliers I'm actually a Roundhead.
I'd be pro Monarchy if the French honoured The Treaty of Troyes.
A Roundhead with red shoes. How Prince Rupert of the Rhine ....
I once read somewhere that everyone in England and Wales is naturally either Roundhead or Cavalier.
And Scotland ??
Recalling that Charles II was King of Scots from 1649-51 before the Cromwell's military government held sway until the restoration in 1660.
Scotland was for the king AND for doing what we want. At least that's what the Covenant said, referring to doing religion our way. The "Killing Times" of the 16thC was about dealing with that contradiction.
It's a good metaphor for present day Scottish politics.
"A man who filmed himself burning the Quran has become the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years. The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."
Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”
This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark's blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity....
It's also counterproductive. These attempts to enshrine special protections or anti-blasphemy laws for Islam just end up turning the general population further against Muslims.
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
I don't have an opinion either way. The point in the post starting the discussion was that who ran the country wasn't decided, with any sensible definition of that term, by the voters at the election, but by the politician's after the election, and inevitably ending up with a platform that no one actually voted for. If the Dutch are happy with that arrangement, more power to them
I think I'm done trading the by-election markets. As long as Labour win at least one of the two seats I'm green. If the LDs pull a massive upset I'm laughing.
If Con/UKIP win both, I'm red. But then hopefully Corbyn will go.
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
Doesn't mean he can't give her an alternative title to be known by. She'd still be queen, of course, but that doesn't mean she has to be styled as such for everyday purposes.
Hardly practical.
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
As the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess. She has already accepted a lesser title; the precedent is in place.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.
There is no acceptance of a lesser title as formally Camilla is Princess of Wales and thus no precedent. She uses the title of Duchess of Cornwall as a courtesy to the memory of Diana. No such courtesy is required when she becomes Queen Consort as it is a title never held by Diana.
Argument in favour of tellers is that it shows presence, perhaps with a locally-known person like a councillor. Argument against is that people who turn up at the station know how they'll vote and won't change their mind because they see a teller.
The classic reason was to mark off people who'd voted, so as not to pester them. Nowadays you mark them off when they say they've voted - if the'yre lying, well, they probably won't vote for you whatever you say.
Is that the same methodology Labour used to gather the immigration statistics whilst in charge :S ?!
So can anyone come up with support for the principle of the divine right of Kings and Queens?
It works.
Err, really? Went well for Charles I.
Not the least of the problems with it is that to start with you need to believe that there is a "divine" to grant any rights.
Besides which, actually, if you believe in divine right, you would have to believe that going against anything the monarch says or does or wants would be treason and the worst of crimes. Going to be a bit tricky for property developers when PoW takes the throne.....
A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17. Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
Interesting, thanks. I suspect that’s the way we’ll go. Our problem is that BT says they WILL soon supply Infinity to part of our community, but not to the majority.
Apparently there was a statistically significant increase in the amount of emigration to the EU8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The amount increased from 12,000 to 39,000 (I think that's year on year).
How is a drop of 15% (on the headline figures) not statistically significant? Unless their method of counting immigration is so crap that the figures are actually ±20%.
Even if they are, it'd still be a 90%+ (off the top of my head) likelihood of being statistically significant.
The whole thing has a 90% chance of being complete nonsense because its based on an optional survey given at major ports of entry. People here on visitors visas and planning to take the piss are hardly likely to complete a survey form!
A hereditary monarchy necessarily involves familial chance. Accordingly the Prince of Wales will succeed his mother and the present Princess of Wales (aka, out of deference to the previous incumbent, as the Duchess of Cornwall) will become Queen Camilla.
An Act of Parliament signed off by new King will be required to formalize any other arrangement and would also require appropriate acts in Commonwealth parliaments that have the monarch as head of state.
We have had (with one obvious exception) a good run with familial chance for the last 175 years. The only positive thing one can say about Charles is that expectations are (deservedly) low so he should struggle to underperform.
I'm not sure expectations of the Prince of Wales are low. The memory of his failed marriage has slowly faded and crucially he and his wife enjoy the private and public support of his popular sons.
Time will tell.
He also has a lot more experience of 'real life' in Britain through The Princes Trust than any of his predecessors - I suspect he'll be fine - provided he learns to bite his tongue.....but he does have one heck of an act to follow.....
A couple of observations: moving disabled people off benefits and into work was very much a New Labour initiative, though IDS has built upon this drawing upon some of the same experts. Google Blair's "Rights and Responsibilities" speech to find the original policy launch - the objective being to have employment levels in the U.K. comparable to other developed economies. The disabled and single parents were specifically targeted with changes for which the Tories would have been slammed: e.g. the closure of Remploy factories and cuts to benefits for mothers with young children.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
There’s a public meeting in our small town next week on the subject of fibre broadband. A local-ish supplier is talking about offering it to all, but, AFAIK, insists on most of us signing up. BT, which I se at the moment, gets me up to download speed of about 17. Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
Interesting, thanks. I suspect that’s the way we’ll go. Our problem is that BT says they WILL soon supply Infinity to part of our community, but not to the majority.
BT have always had a rather ambiguous relationship with the term 'soon'.
@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU: +165,000 EU citizens +164,000 non-EU citizens
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.
EDIT: Ha! The ONS say it is NOT statistically significant.
How is a 15% change not statistically significant - how big are the ONS's error bars?
The ONS only takes small samples of the in/out movements and relies on what the people surveyed tell them. The resulting figures are more 'indicative' than statistics.
He's comparing access to membership, basically the worst case to the best case? Every country in the world has access to the market. I thought the whole point about negotiating something is that we try to get better terms than simply access.
@chrisshipitv: A *fall* in net migration. Down to (a very high) 273,000
There was as many *non*-EU migrants as there were migrants *from* the EU: +165,000 EU citizens +164,000 non-EU citizens
That looks statistically significant. Broken sleazy net migration on the slide.
EDIT: Ha! The ONS say it is NOT statistically significant.
How is a 15% change not statistically significant - how big are the ONS's error bars?
The ONS only takes small samples of the in/out movements and relies on what the people surveyed tell them. The resulting figures are more 'indicative' than statistics.
Comments
Do you have the previous figures on hand? You'd think they would include that in the tweet!
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050404/text/50404w42.htm
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]
Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales but will not use the title.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050404/text/50404w42.htm
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 462W, on the Royal Marriage, whether the spouse of HRH the Prince of Wales will be the Princess of Wales consequent on the marriage to be held on 9 April; and if he will make a statement. [224110]
Mr. Leslie: Following her marriage, Camilla Parker Bowles will be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. As was made clear at the time of the announcement of the marriage, she will be Princess of Wales but will not use the title.
Is your first name Judas?
King Cole, so did ours. We had to nibble discarded clothing. There'd be eight of us, each with a tiny slice of leather belt to chew.
In my opinion, Brexit was the wrong answer to the right question about how to deal with globalisation. Unfortunately we will be dealing with the fallout from the false assumptions behind Brexit and won't be tackling those issues including globalisaton, constitutional stresses on the UK and the the inbalance of our economy, that have just got a lot harder for us to deal with. I have little doubt we will lose a decade or more because of this.
I would look to China, a country I have known very well for most of my life. Not because they have all the answers but because they are seeking answers themselves. They have learnt a lot from the West and been very successful as a result of it. Ask yourselves, what have we learnt from China in that time? Almost nothing.
Secondly, and bringing two themes together, rural economies could be boosted by having proper fibre broadband rather than the pretend fibre that BT Openreach have put into the towns and larger villages. That they have done this is down to a singularly unqualified Minister who was allowed to f**k up Superfast Broadband for six years: one Ed Vazey.
The 42-year-old filmed himself burning a copy of Islam's holy book in his back yard in December 2015. He then posted the video on the anti-Islamic Facebook group, "Yes to freedom - no to Islam" along with the words, “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns."
Danish prosecutor Jan Reckendorff announced his decision to bring charges in a press statement issued on Wednesday afternoon.
“It is the prosecution's view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in certain cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.”
This marks the fourth time in history anyone has been prosecuted under Denmark's blasphemy clause: four people were sentenced for posting posters mocking Jewish teachings in 1938; two people were fined for carrying out a fake baptism at a masked ball in 1946; and two programme leaders at Danish Radio were exonerated in 1971 for airing a song mocking Christianity....
http://www.thelocal.dk/20170222/danish-man-who-burned-koran-charged-for-blasphemy
My first and only loyalty is to the white rose.
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/471595/thread
On the death of the queen Camilla will become Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Any lesser title would imply a mistress status. Some might say appropriate but she is his lawful wife and entitled to all rights associated with being the consort of the monarch.
The simple fact is that the wife of the King is the Queen.
Miss Plato, we'll see what the jury makes of it. Denmark seems less demented than Sweden/Germany when it comes to such things.
I don't like burning books. Or blasphemy laws.
The net migration estimate (the difference between immigration and emigration) for the year ending (YE) September 2016 is +273,000 and has a 95% confidence interval of +/-41,000, compared with +322,000 (+/-37,000) in YE September 2015. This difference was not statistically significant. This is however the lowest recorded net migration estimate since YE June 2014.
Edit: too late to do simple maths!
OK I know this isn't a support helpline but Spellchecker is/was on in Firefox, but it is not working. Any ideas? It could be that I never make a speeling mastake.
Recalling that Charles II was King of Scots from 1649-51 before the Cromwell's military government held sway until the restoration in 1660.
Charles is far from an imbecile. I think he will do OK. The big problem is Queen Elizabeth hanging on for too long. She should retire and the principle of retirement, having been established, means Charles reigns for just a few years until he retires in turn, leaving the way clear for William
In a purely proportional system like the Netherlands, you see crazy fragmentation of political parties. The PVV might well 'win' the Dutch election on just 16-17% of the vote, but that's barely more than the combined share of the Greens and The Party of the Animals. The second and third political parties (the VVD and D66) are both members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe. If the voting system was FPTP, would there really be two Green/Environmental parties in parliament? Or would there be two "Liberal" parties? Or would there be two (separate) Calvinist Parties?
There will likely be seven political parties (maybe eight), with more than 10 seats in the Dutch parliament (out of 150). Their whole system, like it or not, is based around allowing people to choose a political party that almost exactly matches their belief set. And then coalitions - of four or five politcal parties - are formed. Whether someone got the most seats is irrelevant to the Dutch, it is whether you can put together a coalition of at least 75 seats out of 150.
You may not like the system, but I don't think there's any clamour in the Netherlands to change it. And it's hard to argue that it's served the Dutch poorly: they are among the happiest, healthiest, long-lived and most likely to be employed people in the world. They have little government debt, and a huge trade surplus. In other words, the Dutch system may not be the one for us, but it works for them.
See https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Learn-the-Basics-get-started/How-do-I-use-the-Firefox-spell-checker/ta-p/2580 for more details on how to do this.
PM me if you get stuck.
Sandpit, your friendly IT consultant
Under normal circumstances, on polling day, they would be 1/3 or shorter.
Infinity is NOT going to be available for several years.
Anyway, I’m ‘interested’ and will be going along to listen.
Edward VIII was a very popular Prince of Wales. But his stodgy awkward younger brother turned out to be made of the right stuff when tested.
I think the 4-7 is a bit of a gift still to anyone late to the party.
Time will tell.
The exceptions are Germany, Canada and Austalia. Two of those had the benefits of being commodity exporters during a massive commodities boom.
Practical is as practical does and convention is largely whatever is acceptable at the time. Best to start low and let her grow into the role rather than kick off the reign with a crisis.
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/834520599938609153
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103
The classic reason was to mark off people who'd voted, so as not to pester them. Nowadays you mark them off when they say they've voted - if the'yre lying, well, they probably won't vote for you whatever you say.
My first experience of elections was Horney in 1966. I was dead keen to impress the sexy girl running the committee room. She sent me to knock up a dozen people who tellers had not recorded as voting. Almost nobody was home, but one, a massive bloke, said very distinctly, "I voted at 8 this morning. You are the FIFTH person to remind me. The next one to call gets my fist on his nose."
I went back and reported it to Gorgeous. "She said, "He's a fucking liar. Go back and ask him again."
The romance did not prosper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/7586651/First-village-to-get-superfast-broadband.html
The problem has always been that it's bloody expensive to dig up roads and lay fibre, so unless there's a lot of support within the village then it's not financially viable. Good luck!
http://labourlist.org/2017/02/when-i-returned-to-my-former-cumbrian-home-i-met-a-great-candidate-but-saw-how-westminster-has-neglected-copeland/
It's a good metaphor for present day Scottish politics.
If Con/UKIP win both, I'm red. But then hopefully Corbyn will go.
Not the least of the problems with it is that to start with you need to believe that there is a "divine" to grant any rights.
Besides which, actually, if you believe in divine right, you would have to believe that going against anything the monarch says or does or wants would be treason and the worst of crimes. Going to be a bit tricky for property developers when PoW takes the throne.....
The ONS only takes small samples of the in/out movements and relies on what the people surveyed tell them. The resulting figures are more 'indicative' than statistics.
To win or to lose?