Not at the current prices...did I notice you saying you were positive UKIP would get at least 25 percent in Stoke?
@AndyJS prediction of 25-30% for UKIP in Stoke was put quite confidently, it's a small band imo and his standing will increase yet further with the site if it holds up. Going for POTY 2 years in a row ?
Cheers. I'm struggling to see them polling that highly but also loath to ignore anything Andy thinks. If much of that has come from Labour it really will be close at least 3 ways, possibly 4.
ironically the better the Libs do, the more chance UKIP an win.
Absolutely. I think the Lib Dem price is ridiculously high. Although watching Anywhere But Westminster made me wonder where they or the Tories were going to get votes from!!
I watched some of Anywhere but Westminster.
In Stoke it seems the attitude is that the government should do something. Amongst the London media the attitude is that the goverment should do something. Amonst the candidates the attitude is that the government should do something.
In my own locality the attitude is that we should do something.
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Reference Stoke Central: the Lib Dem agent has said in writing this morning: "So we clear the office, bundle the good morning leaflets and prepare for a full-on count where no party really knows what will happen" Is that the reality or what?
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
Oops: I meant George, but the point applies to any heir to the throne really.
Prince Consort, presumably.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.
I think we'll end up paying something to the EU, simply because we'll want to remain members of the ESA, etc. Remember that about 60% of Norway's payment to the EU is for membership of individual bodies.
Copeland is near the centre of the Low where winds are lighter. Might become more unpleasant later when northerlies set in and snow falls in hilly areas in Cumbria.
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
Oops: I meant George, but the point applies to any heir to the throne really.
Prince Consort, presumably.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
Assuming they get the parental order, I don't see why not.
Edit: Though that raises the equally thorny question of adoption.
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
Oops: I meant George, but the point applies to any heir to the throne really.
Prince Consort, presumably.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
I believe Viscount Weymouth (son of the Marquess of Bath) has had a child through surrogacy.
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.
I think we'll end up paying something to the EU, simply because we'll want to remain members of the ESA, etc. Remember that about 60% of Norway's payment to the EU is for membership of individual bodies.
Don't disagree, but it will depend on the scale. 1bn per year for membership of EASA and other such bodies is fine, 10bn isn't.
and probably would have done anyway as they have been for years.
I have to say, that headline (I did not see any point reading the story) almost made me laugh out loud.
Apocryphally, I think Trump offers the UK another opportunity obscured by the shadow of the prospect of a bigger trade deal. I was in Granada this week for a strategy retreat for a major very high tech global NGO. Its annual get together involved thousands of participants from nearly 50 countries last year. It is very rapidly growing, so in a normal year, one would expect even larger numbers this year.
The organizers are very concerned that international participants will either not get visas for the get together in the US, or won't even bother signing up to the NGO at all because of the prevailing climate in the Trump Administration. So they are looking to relocate, lock stock and barrel to London.
The three biggest attractions to the are:
1. the UK is the next most advanced in this field after the US 2. ability to host a conference of this size and nature, particularly international transport links 3. language.
It strikes my that scientific research institutions that are bewailing the potential loss of European integration are missing - at least to date - the opportunity posed by what's going on in the US. We are the natural location for US researchers seeking another home.
Absolutely right. Trump offers us huge opportunities to attract major R&D talent and investment. The university sector could also do very well. But it will undoubtedly depend on the immigration regime the government decides we need and what kind of Brexit deal we end up with. Until that is sorted out, we are in limbo. I suspect that for this reason Canada will end up reaping the Trump dividend.
1. There are a lot of younger EU migrants who are only here temporarily. (Yes, I know a lot will stay, but if even one-in-three goes home after five years, that's a lot of people going who aren't going to be replaced to the same degree.) 2. We're going to tighten non-EU migration rules too, especially in areas such as education. 3. London is not going to be such a hub for multinationals as it was.
Don't forget that the UK had negative net migration in the early 1980s, despite a prosperous and growing economy.
1. I see little evidence or reason to suggest either that 1/3 will go home, or that replacement rates for new migrants won't be high either. 2. Non-EU migration rules have been tightened for years, I simply don't see them realistically getting significantly tighter. 3. What evidence do we have for that? There's been lots of positive news in recent months for major multinationals either saying they're staying in London or expanding/moving into London.
In the early 1980s the UK was still recovering from being the "sick man of Europe" with over 3 million unemployed. It was also before the fall of the iron curtain started massive migration from Eastern Europe and at a time that there was much less migration from the third world. We're in a completely different era now and the iron curtain is not coming back.
Regarding (1): hundreds of thousands of EU nationals return home every year, it's just that an even larger number come here. If a smaller number come here (and they will), then I don't see how the EU number doesn't go negative.
Re (3): Firms who are reducing their London presence (like Goldman) are doing in quietly.
Copeland is near the centre of the Low where winds are lighter. Might become more unpleasant later when northerlies set in and snow falls in hilly areas in Cumbria.
Just had gusts of 91mph in Capel Curig. Very destructive
Ouch. Manchester airport is looking like fun, crosswinds close to limits, lots of planes going around at the moment. Birmingham will probably be similar.
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
Oops: I meant George, but the point applies to any heir to the throne really.
Prince Consort, presumably.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
I believe Viscount Weymouth (son of the Marquess of Bath) has had a child through surrogacy.
Sure, but a.) it's a second child, not expected to inherit; and b.) it is the biological child of the Viscount and his wife.
Any experts on the laws of Royal Succession around at the moment?
Any deal that proposes paying into the EU, unrestricted immigration and being subject to the ECJ, would fill Graham Brady's postbox faster than a fat goalie eating a pie for a bet.
I think we'll end up paying something to the EU, simply because we'll want to remain members of the ESA, etc. Remember that about 60% of Norway's payment to the EU is for membership of individual bodies.
Don't disagree, but it will depend on the scale. 1bn per year for membership of EASA and other such bodies is fine, 10bn isn't.
If you assume that 60% of the UK's net 10bn is for general coffers/CAP/social cohestion/etc, that would cap our contribution at about 4bn. We probably won't want to be members of all the EU administered bodies Norway is a member of, but we'll probably end up paying a slight premium for those we are members of. I'd reckon 3bn is a good guess, and is one which would be cheaper than us replicating these capabilities at home.
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
Oops: I meant George, but the point applies to any heir to the throne really.
Prince Consort, presumably.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
I believe Viscount Weymouth (son of the Marquess of Bath) has had a child through surrogacy.
Sure, but a.) it's a second child, not expected to inherit; and b.) it is the biological child of the Viscount and his wife.
Any experts on the laws of Royal Succession around at the moment?
Surely it is only the genetic material of one parent that matters in these cases?
Mark Wallace For eg, here's @theobertram's graph of semi-skilled, unskilled or out of work voters. Labour have *always* led, now down to a 1-point lead. https://t.co/NoSsDGFr6k
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Cameron suggested that, and got widely laughed at for it.
Are you thinking of the big society?
Wikipedia says
The Big Society was a political ideology developed in the early 21st century. The idea proposes "integrating the free market with a theory of social solidarity based on hierarchy and voluntarism". Conceptually it "draws on a mix of conservative communitarianism and libertarian paternalism". Its roots "can be traced back to the 1990s, and to early attempts to develop a non-Thatcherite, or post-Thatcherite, brand of UK conservatism" such as David Willets' Civic Conservatism and the revival of Red Toryism. Some commentators have seen the Big Society as invoking Edmund Burke's idea of civil society, putting it into the sphere of one-nation conservatism.
During the course of the 2010–15 government the Big Society declined as an instrument of government policy. David Cameron did not use the term in public after 2013 and the phrase ceased to be used in government statements.[52] Despite government willingness to encourage volunteering, the percentage of the UK population actively engaged in voluntary associations declined consistently since the start of the economic crisis.[27] The collapse of the Big Society Network in 2014 and criticism of the Prime Minister's relationship with it[21] were followed by a critical final Big Society Audit published by Civil Exchange in January 2015.[53] The audit highlighted cuts in charity grants and restrictions on the right to challenge government policy through the courts as undermining Big Society ideals
The NYT piece is really quite shocking and shows how badly the economy is providing for the just below average American. I am sure that someone enterprising enough could produce very similar statistics here and for similar reasons. The loss of well paid, semi-skilled jobs in both economies has devastated societies leaving them with chronic structural unemployment with the options being minimum wage work, the gig economy and zero hour contracts. This has a knock on effect to retail, the service economy and the demand on the State's resources.
Absolutely. The sad news is we are going to lose a lot in terms of relative living standards over the next few decades because globalisation acts to average the standard of living of the global workforce, and that means we are going to be averaged against a billion Indians and two billion Chinese. They work harder and longer for less money, business will inevitably move there. They have an effectively bottomless sump of labour to draw from so there will be very little movement in wages in those countries for the foreseeable future. Sure we can console ourselves that our dynamic liberal societies make betters ideas people and we are better at creativity, but how many people does that employ ? Half the population or more doesn't have the gifts to handle anything but a unskilled or semi-skilled job, the trick for the next half a century is going to be making those people feel like valued members of society, because if we continue to shaft them to maintain the standards of living of the lucky few things will get ugly.
I'm far from sure that's the way it's going to end up.
The Chinese working age population has already peaked.
They have hundred of millions of people not yet working in the cities to call on before that before a remote issue. Issues about where people may or may not want to work have rather less salience in a dictatorship
Demographic advantages are likely to be moot. Automation will mean that on-shoring might become more attractive. Whatever happens, the post-WWII blue collar jobs aren't coming back.
We wont onshore with automation, because everyone seems to want to charge a Robot Tax to pay for Universal Basic Income, which will guarantee it stays offshore in perpetuity!
If these robots are going to be taxed how long until they want to vote?
There wasn't enough put into it, and the idea may have been hobbled by Cameron's background (ie it looked like a well-off chap telling poorer people to look after themselves, rather than a sensible approach to not relying on the state to do everything).
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Cameron suggested that, and got widely laughed at for it.
Are you thinking of the big society?
Wikipedia says
The Big Society was a political ideology developed in the early 21st century. The idea proposes "integrating the free market with a theory of social solidarity based on hierarchy and voluntarism". Conceptually it "draws on a mix of conservative communitarianism and libertarian paternalism". Its roots "can be traced back to the 1990s, and to early attempts to develop a non-Thatcherite, or post-Thatcherite, brand of UK conservatism" such as David Willets' Civic Conservatism and the revival of Red Toryism. Some commentators have seen the Big Society as invoking Edmund Burke's idea of civil society, putting it into the sphere of one-nation conservatism.
Whatever happens to Dave's three days off work to work on community projects ? Ah yes, its was one of many things he promised before the election and quietly forgot about afterwards.
@Fysics_Teacher wrote : "What we call Harry's consort if he marries a man?"
If Harry marries a chap (not looking likely) the husband might already be a right old queen ....
Oops: I meant George, but the point applies to any heir to the throne really.
Prince Consort, presumably.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
I believe Viscount Weymouth (son of the Marquess of Bath) has had a child through surrogacy.
Sure, but a.) it's a second child, not expected to inherit; and b.) it is the biological child of the Viscount and his wife.
Any experts on the laws of Royal Succession around at the moment?
Surely it is only the genetic material of one parent that matters in these cases?
No; that's kind of the point - IIRC, only the child of a legally married spouse is a legitimate heir. It's the kind of problem most surrogate users are unlikely to have to grapple with.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
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.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
Princess Consort might be an option, although King and Queen is just much more natural and less contrived.
As I recall, at the time of their marriage, it was announced that Camilla would be Duchess of Cornwall before Charles became King and Princess Consort afterwards.
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Cameron suggested that, and got widely laughed at for it.
Are you thinking of the big society?
Yes, it started as the antithesis of big government with voluntary groups doing more for themselves rather than having the government do everything for them.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
We wont onshore with automation, because everyone seems to want to charge a Robot Tax to pay for Universal Basic Income, which will guarantee it stays offshore in perpetuity!
If these robots are going to be taxed how long until they want to vote?
The NYT piece is really quite shocking and shows how badly the economy is providing for the just below average American. I am sure that someone enterprising enough could produce very similar statistics here and for similar reasons. The loss of well paid, semi-skilled jobs in both economies has devastated societies leaving them with chronic structural unemployment with the options being minimum wage work, the gig economy and zero hour contracts. This has a knock on effect to retail, the service economy and the demand on the State's resources.
Absolutely. The sad news is we are going to lose a lot in terms of relative living standards over the next few decades because globalisation acts to average the standard of living of the global workforce, and that means we are going to be averaged against a billion Indians and two billion Chinese. They work harder and longer for less money, business will inevitably move there. They have an effectively bottomless sump of labour to draw from so there will be very little movement in wages in those countries for the foreseeable future. Sure we can console ourselves that our dynamic liberal societies make betters ideas people and we are better at creativity, but how many people does that employ ? Half the population or more doesn't have the gifts to handle anything but a unskilled or semi-skilled job, the trick for the next half a century is going to be making those people feel like valued members of society, because if we continue to shaft them to maintain the standards of living of the lucky few things will get ugly.
I'm far from sure that's the way it's going to end up.
The Chinese working age population has already peaked.
They have hundred of millions of people not yet working in the cities to call on before that before a remote issue. Issues about where people may or may not want to work have rather less salience in a dictatorship
Demographic advantages are likely to be moot. Automation will mean that on-shoring might become more attractive. Whatever happens, the post-WWII blue collar jobs aren't coming back.
We wont onshore with automation, because everyone seems to want to charge a Robot Tax to pay for Universal Basic Income, which will guarantee it stays offshore in perpetuity!
If these robots are going to be taxed how long until they want to vote?
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.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
Princess Consort might be an option, although King and Queen is just much more natural and less contrived.
As I recall, at the time of their marriage, it was announced that Camilla would be Duchess of Cornwall before Charles became King and Princess Consort afterwards.
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Cameron suggested that, and got widely laughed at for it.
Are you thinking of the big society?
Wikipedia says
The Big Society was a political ideology developed in the early 21st century. The idea proposes "integrating the free market with a theory of social solidarity based on hierarchy and voluntarism". Conceptually it "draws on a mix of conservative communitarianism and libertarian paternalism". Its roots "can be traced back to the 1990s, and to early attempts to develop a non-Thatcherite, or post-Thatcherite, brand of UK conservatism" such as David Willets' Civic Conservatism and the revival of Red Toryism. Some commentators have seen the Big Society as invoking Edmund Burke's idea of civil society, putting it into the sphere of one-nation conservatism.
Whatever happens to Dave's three days off work to work on community projects ? Ah yes, its was one of many things he promised before the election and quietly forgot about afterwards.
Theresa should revive it. When cheap migrant labour disappears post-Brexit, getting the natives to volunteer will be the only way to get the crap stuff done.
Mr. Indigo, it's interesting, in a 'we might all be killed' sort of way, to consider whether artificial intelligence would have the same co-morbidity of psychological disorder as human intelligence (in short, the smarter someone is, the likelier they are to have a psychological condition such as psychopathology, bipolar, schizophrenia etc).
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Cameron suggested that, and got widely laughed at for it.
Are you thinking of the big society?
Wikipedia says
The Big Society was a political ideology developed in the early 21st century. The idea proposes "integrating the free market with a theory of social solidarity based on hierarchy and voluntarism". Conceptually it "draws on a mix of conservative communitarianism and libertarian paternalism". Its roots "can be traced back to the 1990s, and to early attempts to develop a non-Thatcherite, or post-Thatcherite, brand of UK conservatism" such as David Willets' Civic Conservatism and the revival of Red Toryism. Some commentators have seen the Big Society as invoking Edmund Burke's idea of civil society, putting it into the sphere of one-nation conservatism.
Whatever happens to Dave's three days off work to work on community projects ? Ah yes, its was one of many things he promised before the election and quietly forgot about afterwards.
Theresa should revive it. When cheap migrant labour disappears post-Brexit, getting the natives to volunteer will be the only way to get the crap stuff done.
Possibly, I mean we dont get any migrant labour coming from outside the EU on visas now do we ?
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Manchester airport is effectively closed for winds at the moment, there's planes flying around all over the sky, hope the captains all put a few gallons extra in the tanks this morning!
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
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.
The easiest solution would be to create her Duchess of somewhere in her own right
Princess Consort might be an option, although King and Queen is just much more natural and less contrived.
As I recall, at the time of their marriage, it was announced that Camilla would be Duchess of Cornwall before Charles became King and Princess Consort afterwards.
More like Duchess of Cromwell?
I don't see why not. Given the abolition of gender distinction in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, it seems in the spirit of the times to say that Camilla shouldn't be any better placed than the D of Edinb, so either we make him king or she gets stuck with a dukedom. (She can have a new one in her own right if she wants.)
Mr. Indigo, it's interesting, in a 'we might all be killed' sort of way, to consider whether artificial intelligence would have the same co-morbidity of psychological disorder as human intelligence (in short, the smarter someone is, the likelier they are to have a psychological condition such as psychopathology, bipolar, schizophrenia etc).
The futurists currently estimate Singularity at around 2040, it's an idea first floated by John von Neumann, so deserves to be treated with some seriousness. Even Obama has spoken on the subject:
One thing that we haven’t talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren’t spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about “Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?
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.
The Prince of Wales as Regent is a perfectly acceptable solution should the Queen become incapacitated. Such arrangements were in place for George VI/Princess Elizabeth, Queen Victoria/Prince Albert Edward and William IV/ Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent.
Agreed. Not being the sort to think the position is divinely ordained, I have no personal issue with abdication, but regency handles any incapacity issue so it is not necessary.
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Cameron suggested that, and got widely laughed at for it.
Are you thinking of the big society?
Yes, it started as the antithesis of big government with voluntary groups doing more for themselves rather than having the government do everything for them.
Which wasn't a bad idea in theory.
It was actually ruthlessly capitalistic. A friend of mine is in the heritage industry. The available work has plummeted because the heritage sites, taking a leaf out of Dave's book, now get the old dears from the village to do the hard graft as unpaid volunteers. Many of the heritage professionals have been left on the scrap heap.
and probably would have done anyway as they have been for years.
I have to say, that headline (I did not see any point reading the story) almost made me laugh out loud.
Apocryphally, I think Trump offers the UK another opportunity obscured by the shadow of the prospect of a bigger trade deal. I was in Granada this week for a strategy retreat for a major very high tech global NGO. Its annual get together involved thousands of participants from nearly 50 countries last year. It is very rapidly growing, so in a normal year, one would expect even larger numbers this year.
The organizers are very concerned that international participants will either not get visas for the get together in the US, or won't even bother signing up to the NGO at all because of the prevailing climate in the Trump Administration. So they are looking to relocate, lock stock and barrel to London.
The three biggest attractions to the are:
1. the UK is the next most advanced in this field after the US 2. ability to host a conference of this size and nature, particularly international transport links 3. language.
It strikes my that scientific research institutions that are bewailing the potential loss of European integration are missing - at least to date - the opportunity posed by what's going on in the US. We are the natural location for US researchers seeking another home.
Absolutely right. Trump offers us huge opportunities to attract major R&D talent and investment. The university sector could also do very well. But it will undoubtedly depend on the immigration regime the government decides we need and what kind of Brexit deal we end up with. Until that is sorted out, we are in limbo. I suspect that for this reason Canada will end up reaping the Trump dividend.
Not so sure this opportunity is so dependent on the Brexit deal, as the persons involved are already outside of the single market. It is dependent on us being sensible about work visas for knowledge industry talent.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Ironically, the weather up here in the "proper" North is OK. Bit of light rain and breezy. Entirely normal for Feb..
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Bit late if they are leaving London now!
Whitehaven/Copeland is further from Stoke than Stoke is from London.
Lots of gimpy Young Labour activists posting photos of themselves stuck on trains on the way to Stoke. I would imagine most folk would resent being told how to vote by under 25s but as someone who has never done any doorstepping maybe I'm missing something.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Bit late if they are leaving London now!
Whitehaven/Copeland is further from Stoke than Stoke is from London.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Bit late if they are leaving London now!
Whitehaven/Copeland is further from Stoke than Stoke is from London.
Top marks for effort for anyone going from London to Whitehaven to try to persuade people to vote. Not sure I'd sit on a train for five hours for the benefit of trudging the streets of Cleator Moor in more-horrible-than-usual weather in order to try to enthuse people who instinctively hate me and all that I stand for.
Not sure about Stoke or Copeland, but the weather in South Manchester is dreadful. I've just walked 400 yards from my house to the tram stop, and my face absolutely aches.
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trains from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
I wonder how UKIP will do in Stoke. If it's a close Lab-Con contest, they may get squeezed.
To me UKIP are finished - rudderless and pointless, no idea what their canvassers can say on doorsteps. The hatchet job on Nuttall was predictable and effective, Labour are brilliant at it. UKIP's ability to get voters out is dreadful, comfortable Labour win for me.
I am sure Labour would love to have the hatchet capability you attribute to them, and may even enjoy making out that they do. But from where I was sitting Nuttall self destructed. It was pure luck for Labour - just about the only luck they have had since IDS was selected as Tory leader.
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.snip for space.
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.
The Prince of Wales as Regent is a perfectly acceptable solution should the Queen become incapacitated. Such arrangements were in place for George VI/Princess Elizabeth, Queen Victoria/Prince Albert Edward and William IV/ Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent.
Agreed. Not being the sort to think the position is divinely ordained, I have no personal issue with abdication, but regency handles any incapacity issue so it is not necessary.
I think there is going to be a lot more of a shitstorm than people expect over Charles' succession. The question has been on ice since HM attained personal Living National Treasure status which she probably did by the 1977 Jubilee at the latest. People like her, they don't necessarily like the monarchy per se, nor Charles personally. The world in general, and the commonwealth countries in general, and the UK and Scotland specifically, have developed a taste for referendums. There will be betting opportunities.
"I foresee great contests at my funeral games" - Alexander the Great.
There was a recent case in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where due to DNA testing, what was previously considered to be the senior family branch was found not to be the proper male heir line.
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trans from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
Unless, of course, they aren't coming from the south. Not everybody does, you know.
Mr. Z, but there was no clear heir for Alexander (assuming he left the empire to 'krateroi'[sp] (the strongest) and not, as many think, Craterus (one of his best generals who was absent at his demise), with those present choosing to mishear Alexander).
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trans from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
Comment seen elsewhere: "Apparently Doris has closed a lot of trains heading out of St Pancras and Euston and therefore a lot of London activists are struggling to get up to Stoke"
Can anyone confirm this?
Twitter full of journos reporting the same - trains heading north are off, so not getting to Copeland or Stoke.
Bit late if they are leaving London now!
Whitehaven/Copeland is further from Stoke than Stoke is from London.
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trans from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
I have been shuttling to and fro from Lancashire to the South for about 40 years, and for 39 of them I have been asking myself wtf this Thelwall Viaduct of which traffic announcers speak might be. For those in a similar plight, it means the Ship Canal crossing.
A very silly article even by Melanie McDonagh's high standards of silliness. No monarchy in history has been predicated on the sexual morality of the King, certainly not ours. Kings have often had mistresses and there is no reason why they can't marry them if they want to. They're just like everyone else in that respect.
Diana Princess of Wales, bless her, freely admitted that she was unfaithful too.
Being Queen isn't a reward for non-adultery. Being Queen is a function of being married to the King. Even Queen Caroline was Queen, although she wasn't allowed in to the Coronation because of her adultery.
We are entitled to the full deck of monarchy, which includes a Queen to go with the King. If Melanie McDonagh wants to purse her lips, that's up to her. It's got nothing to do with the constitution. Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense. (Not to mention John 8:7.)
Mr. Z, but there was no clear heir for Alexander (assuming he left the empire to 'krateroi'[sp] (the strongest) and not, as many think, Craterus (one of his best generals who was absent at his demise), with those present choosing to mishear Alexander).
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trans from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
I have been shuttling to and fro from Lancashire to the South for about 40 years, and for 39 of them I have been asking myself wtf this Thelwall Viaduct of which traffic announcers speak might be. For those in a similar plight, it means the Ship Canal crossing.
Yes, it's the bloody big bridge over the ship canal on the M6 near Lymm, just south of Manchester. Site of almost continuous roadworks and immense frustration for about two decades!
A very silly article even by Melanie McDonagh's high standards of silliness. No monarchy in history has been predicated on the sexual morality of the King, certainly not ours. Kings have often had mistresses and there is no reason why they can't marry them if they want to. They're just like everyone else in that respect.
Diana Princess of Wales, bless her, freely admitted that she was unfaithful too.
Being Queen isn't a reward for non-adultery. Being Queen is a function of being married to the King. Even Queen Caroline was Queen, although she wasn't allowed in to the Coronation because of her adultery.
We are entitled to the full deck of monarchy, which includes a Queen to go with the King. If Melanie McDonagh wants to purse her lips, that's up to her. It's got nothing to do with the constitution. Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense. (Not to mention John 8:7.)
"No monarchy in history has been predicated on the sexual morality of the King, certainly not ours"
"No English monarch has been decapitated for treason" - 1648
"No English monarch has abdicated to marry a batty American divorcee" - 1928
"No flag has been hung at half mast over a Palace which the monarch is not presently occupying" - 1996.
"In January, Trump broke mediaQuant’s records, receiving $817 million in coverage.
This was more than the next 1000 of the world’s best-known figures - including Hillary Clinton, Kim Kardashian, Vladimir Putin and Tom Brady - COMBINED. (Their total came to $721 million.)
Given the fact there are now many people on the planet than ever before, and most of us now have access to the internet and social media, the Times declared that Donald Trump is now the most famous and talked about person in history.
So when Hollywood, the most fame-hungry, egotistical place on Planet Earth, rises to denounce him on Sunday night, just bear in mind that their fury might not be entirely unconnected to this one simple fact.
Trump, until recently a mere reality TV host, is now getting all their A-list celebrity oxygen and the only way La La Land can get a piece of the action is to attack him.
As H.G. Wells put it: ‘Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trans from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
Unless, of course, they aren't coming from the south. Not everybody does, you know.
A lot of the activists and certainly most of the political journalists would have been coming from London though. Trying hard to think who benefits most from lower than expected turnout. Not UKIP is the best answer I have so far.
Lots of gimpy Young Labour activists posting photos of themselves stuck on trains on the way to Stoke. I would imagine most folk would resent being told how to vote by under 25s but as someone who has never done any doorstepping maybe I'm missing something.
you haven't. They knock, they say "surely you believe in the revolution?" If not you are in the KKK, you rich bastard. Then they walk away. You promptly vote Conservative. Keeping them away maybe Labour's secret weapon.
Anyone not in Copeland by now isn't going to make it. Thelwall Viaduct on M6 now closed to all traffic due to winds, all intercity trans from Euston delayed and Manchester airport effectively closed.
Unless, of course, they aren't coming from the south. Not everybody does, you know.
A lot of the activists and certainly most of the political journalists would have been coming from London though. Trying hard to think who benefits most from lower than expected turnout. Not UKIP is the best answer I have so far.
Surely Labour must have the most support martialled in the areas, and more able to come from the north?
Any northerners among us will remember our mums telling us its a big coat day...before pushing us out the door to walk to school in 100 mph gale force winds and driving rain.
Comments
Appropriately enough, I suppose.
In Stoke it seems the attitude is that the government should do something. Amongst the London media the attitude is that the goverment should do something. Amonst the candidates the attitude is that the government should do something.
In my own locality the attitude is that we should do something.
We need politicians who will enable us to do things for ourselves. Which party, if any, is promoting self help?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
Here's a poser: if things did turn out that way, and the happy couple produced a child by surrogate (using at least George's, um, genetic material, if not both) - would that child be a legitimate heir to the throne?
Edit: Though that raises the equally thorny question of adoption.
I'll get me coat.
Re (3): Firms who are reducing their London presence (like Goldman) are doing in quietly.
Tomorrow's @theheraldsun front page tonight ... listen to secret dons tape now at https://t.co/59TlRORY0v https://t.co/eCG2JiLNzO
Postal votes rule. OK.
Any experts on the laws of Royal Succession around at the moment?
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/834733564080095232
For eg, here's @theobertram's graph of semi-skilled, unskilled or out of work voters. Labour have *always* led, now down to a 1-point lead. https://t.co/NoSsDGFr6k
Are you thinking of the big society?
Wikipedia says
The Big Society was a political ideology developed in the early 21st century. The idea proposes "integrating the free market with a theory of social solidarity based on hierarchy and voluntarism". Conceptually it "draws on a mix of conservative communitarianism and libertarian paternalism". Its roots "can be traced back to the 1990s, and to early attempts to develop a non-Thatcherite, or post-Thatcherite, brand of UK conservatism" such as David Willets' Civic Conservatism and the revival of Red Toryism. Some commentators have seen the Big Society as invoking Edmund Burke's idea of civil society, putting it into the sphere of one-nation conservatism.
During the course of the 2010–15 government the Big Society declined as an instrument of government policy. David Cameron did not use the term in public after 2013 and the phrase ceased to be used in government statements.[52] Despite government willingness to encourage volunteering, the percentage of the UK population actively engaged in voluntary associations declined consistently since the start of the economic crisis.[27] The collapse of the Big Society Network in 2014 and criticism of the Prime Minister's relationship with it[21] were followed by a critical final Big Society Audit published by Civil Exchange in January 2015.[53] The audit highlighted cuts in charity grants and restrictions on the right to challenge government policy through the courts as undermining Big Society ideals
There wasn't enough put into it, and the idea may have been hobbled by Cameron's background (ie it looked like a well-off chap telling poorer people to look after themselves, rather than a sensible approach to not relying on the state to do everything).
Can anyone confirm this?
Which wasn't a bad idea in theory.
Given the widely forecast climatic conditions, this was quite predictable.
and if that seems like fantasy, then this might be a bit spooky
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-robot-has-just-passed-a-classic-self-awareness-
test-for-the-first-time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95aYLmG0wt8
Trains are currently NOT departing London Euston.
Manchester airport is effectively closed for winds at the moment, there's planes flying around all over the sky, hope the captains all put a few gallons extra in the tanks this morning!
One thing that we haven’t talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren’t spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about “Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?
Fruit is going to need to be in everything.
Oh, you mean for the activists. False alarm, people.
Not sure about Stoke or Copeland, but the weather in South Manchester is dreadful. I've just walked 400 yards from my house to the tram stop, and my face absolutely aches.
"I foresee great contests at my funeral games" - Alexander the Great.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article186113.ece
His current seat used to be Sio Simons, I am sure I have heard the name before...
https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/docs/jcpc-2015-0079-press-summary.pdf
Diana Princess of Wales, bless her, freely admitted that she was unfaithful too.
Being Queen isn't a reward for non-adultery. Being Queen is a function of being married to the King. Even Queen Caroline was Queen, although she wasn't allowed in to the Coronation because of her adultery.
We are entitled to the full deck of monarchy, which includes a Queen to go with the King. If Melanie McDonagh wants to purse her lips, that's up to her. It's got nothing to do with the constitution. Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense. (Not to mention John 8:7.)
"No English monarch has been decapitated for treason" - 1648
"No English monarch has abdicated to marry a batty American divorcee" - 1928
"No flag has been hung at half mast over a Palace which the monarch is not presently occupying" - 1996.
"In January, Trump broke mediaQuant’s records, receiving $817 million in coverage.
This was more than the next 1000 of the world’s best-known figures - including Hillary Clinton, Kim Kardashian, Vladimir Putin and Tom Brady - COMBINED. (Their total came to $721 million.)
Given the fact there are now many people on the planet than ever before, and most of us now have access to the internet and social media, the Times declared that Donald Trump is now the most famous and talked about person in history.
So when Hollywood, the most fame-hungry, egotistical place on Planet Earth, rises to denounce him on Sunday night, just bear in mind that their fury might not be entirely unconnected to this one simple fact.
Trump, until recently a mere reality TV host, is now getting all their A-list celebrity oxygen and the only way La La Land can get a piece of the action is to attack him.
As H.G. Wells put it: ‘Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.
Any northerners among us will remember our mums telling us its a big coat day...before pushing us out the door to walk to school in 100 mph gale force winds and driving rain.
"50°F
People in Southern England turn on the central heating
People in Edinburgh plant out bedding plants
40°F
Southerners shiver uncontrollably
Glaswegians sunbathe on the beach at Largs
35°F
Cars in the South of England refuse to start
People in Falkirk drive with their windows down
20°F
Southerners wear overcoats, gloves and woolly hats
Aberdonian men throw on a t-shirt; girls start wearing mini-skirts
15°F
Southerners begin to evacuate to the continent
People from Dundee swim in the River Tay at Broughty Ferry
0°F
Life in the South grinds to a halt
Inverness folk have the last BBQ before it gets chilly at night
-10°F
Life in the South ceases to exist
People in Dunfermline throw on a light jacket
-80°F
Polar bears wonder if it's worth carrying on
Boy Scouts in Oban start wearing their long trousers
-100°F
Santa Claus abandons North Pole
People in Stirling put on their 'long johns'
-173°F
Alcohol freezes
Glaswegians get upset because all the pubs are shut
-297°F
Microbial life starts to disappear
The cows in Dumfriesshire complain about farmers with cold hands
-460°F
All atomic motion stops
Shetlanders stamp their feet and blow on their hands
-500°F
Hell freezes over
A Scotsman will support England in the World cup "