What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
I’m shocked at this revelation about TSE’s supposed Republican tendencies. Quite an accusation! Are you sure and lawyered up? Is he French?
Fans have been banned from bringing alcohol into Lord’s for the remainder of The Hundred after crowd trouble at last week’s matches there forced the early closure of the ground’s bars.
The stadium has also halved the number of alcoholic drinks an individual can buy at its own bars from four to two per transaction during Hundred games there and will now shut those bars halfway through men’s matches.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the moves follow alcohol-fuelled crowd trouble during Thursday’s London Spirit games against Trent Rockets, which led to the ground’s bars being closed half an hour before the end of the men’s game.
Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) members will be exempt from the ban on bringing booze into Lord’s, which will also not apply to non-Hundred fixtures.
The remaining Hundred fixtures at the ground are London Spirit’s matches against Southern Brave today [on Sunday] and against Northern Superchargers on Tuesday, as well as the final on August 21.
A spectator may bring into Lord's either: one bottle of wine or Champagne (max. 750ml); or two cans or bottles of beer or cider (max. 500ml); or two cans of premixed aperitifs (max. 330ml). No spectator will be re-admitted if in possession of alcohol.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
Fans have been banned from bringing alcohol into Lord’s for the remainder of The Hundred after crowd trouble at last week’s matches there forced the early closure of the ground’s bars.
The stadium has also halved the number of alcoholic drinks an individual can buy at its own bars from four to two per transaction during Hundred games there and will now shut those bars halfway through men’s matches.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the moves follow alcohol-fuelled crowd trouble during Thursday’s London Spirit games against Trent Rockets, which led to the ground’s bars being closed half an hour before the end of the men’s game.
Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) members will be exempt from the ban on bringing booze into Lord’s, which will also not apply to non-Hundred fixtures.
The remaining Hundred fixtures at the ground are London Spirit’s matches against Southern Brave today [on Sunday] and against Northern Superchargers on Tuesday, as well as the final on August 21.
A spectator may bring into Lord's either: one bottle of wine or Champagne (max. 750ml); or two cans or bottles of beer or cider (max. 500ml); or two cans of premixed aperitifs (max. 330ml). No spectator will be re-admitted if in possession of alcohol.
1. What will be deleted from the timetable to make room for it. 2. Where the funds come from for a whole new subject field. Teachers cost. And they come in discrete lumps, not infinitely graduated sums. 3. How far this is intended to save on expensive subjects such as science, home economics cookery labs (as e.g. debated on PB), music, PT etc. For Latin, one only needs a textbook/reader and primer for grammar such as Kennedy's. Not even a language laboratory. Who needs one for Latin? It's a dead language, unless one has the RC hierarchy in mind as a career choice, and that is Not The Right Kind of Catholic Church as opposed to the C of E, unless the latter is going all pre-Laudian. Or the Latin is needed for acolytes in some new form of spider sacrifice ritual I haven't yet learnt about on PB (eye opening as it has been today). 4. How this is to be reconciled with the Conservative Government's drive to closing down non-STEM subjects in English universities ((c) Gove M., unless I misremember, inter aliis).
Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
[with minor edits to improve rhetoric and textual accuracy]
To which I would add. Where is the demand? Unless it is made compulsory not many will choose it at 14. Few continue French, Spanish, etc. when given the choice. All of the above are perfectly valid reasons why it isn't taught now. That the Tory Party is so ignorant of the basics of both supply and demand. A visitor from 2007 would be astonished.
Gavin Williamson is EdSec who is rumoured to be facing the sack. The Latin scheme will please Boris, who loves the Classics, and who gets to decide if GW keeps his job. It will also channel money to free schools which already teach Latin and which are run by supporters of said Mr Boris.
And shutting down non-STEM subjects was not Gove (arguably Cummings). Michael Gove was pro-liberal arts (strangely this is seen as left-wing in America but right-wing in Britain) and anti-sport.
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Lizzie (aka The Guv'nor) has at most around 5 years left. at that point chuck will be in his mid/late 70s. I've no doubt that he'll live as long as his parents so will have 15/20 years on the throne.
Fans have been banned from bringing alcohol into Lord’s for the remainder of The Hundred after crowd trouble at last week’s matches there forced the early closure of the ground’s bars.
The stadium has also halved the number of alcoholic drinks an individual can buy at its own bars from four to two per transaction during Hundred games there and will now shut those bars halfway through men’s matches.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the moves follow alcohol-fuelled crowd trouble during Thursday’s London Spirit games against Trent Rockets, which led to the ground’s bars being closed half an hour before the end of the men’s game.
Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) members will be exempt from the ban on bringing booze into Lord’s, which will also not apply to non-Hundred fixtures.
The remaining Hundred fixtures at the ground are London Spirit’s matches against Southern Brave today [on Sunday] and against Northern Superchargers on Tuesday, as well as the final on August 21.
A spectator may bring into Lord's either: one bottle of wine or Champagne (max. 750ml); or two cans or bottles of beer or cider (max. 500ml); or two cans of premixed aperitifs (max. 330ml). No spectator will be re-admitted if in possession of alcohol.
Are you a premixed aperitif drinker?
I had to look that up.
I’m going to watch top class cricket (from India, anyway), not to get hammered.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
Fans have been banned from bringing alcohol into Lord’s for the remainder of The Hundred after crowd trouble at last week’s matches there forced the early closure of the ground’s bars.
The stadium has also halved the number of alcoholic drinks an individual can buy at its own bars from four to two per transaction during Hundred games there and will now shut those bars halfway through men’s matches.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal the moves follow alcohol-fuelled crowd trouble during Thursday’s London Spirit games against Trent Rockets, which led to the ground’s bars being closed half an hour before the end of the men’s game.
Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) members will be exempt from the ban on bringing booze into Lord’s, which will also not apply to non-Hundred fixtures.
The remaining Hundred fixtures at the ground are London Spirit’s matches against Southern Brave today [on Sunday] and against Northern Superchargers on Tuesday, as well as the final on August 21.
A spectator may bring into Lord's either: one bottle of wine or Champagne (max. 750ml); or two cans or bottles of beer or cider (max. 500ml); or two cans of premixed aperitifs (max. 330ml). No spectator will be re-admitted if in possession of alcohol.
Are you a premixed aperitif drinker?
I had to look that up.
I’m going to watch top class cricket (from India, anyway), not to get hammered.
Good man, the weirdest people for me in the country are the people who got to test matches in hot fancy dress outfits.
1. What will be deleted from the timetable to make room for it. 2. Where the funds come from for a whole new subject field. Teachers cost. And they come in discrete lumps, not infinitely graduated sums. 3. How far this is intended to save on expensive subjects such as science, home economics cookery labs (as e.g. debated on PB), music, PT etc. For Latin, one only needs a textbook/reader and primer for grammar such as Kennedy's. Not even a language laboratory. Who needs one for Latin? It's a dead language, unless one has the RC hierarchy in mind as a career choice, and that is Not The Right Kind of Catholic Church as opposed to the C of E, unless the latter is going all pre-Laudian. Or the Latin is needed for acolytes in some new form of spider sacrifice ritual I haven't yet learnt about on PB (eye opening as it has been today). 4. How this is to be reconciled with the Conservative Government's drive to closing down non-STEM subjects in English universities ((c) Gove M., unless I misremember, inter aliis).
Quicquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
[with minor edits to improve rhetoric and textual accuracy]
To which I would add. Where is the demand? Unless it is made compulsory not many will choose it at 14. Few continue French, Spanish, etc. when given the choice. All of the above are perfectly valid reasons why it isn't taught now. That the Tory Party is so ignorant of the basics of both supply and demand. A visitor from 2007 would be astonished.
Gavin Williamson is EdSec who is rumoured to be facing the sack. The Latin scheme will please Boris, who loves the Classics, and who gets to decide if GW keeps his job. It will also channel money to free schools which already teach Latin and which are run by supporters of said Mr Boris.
And shutting down non-STEM subjects was not Gove (arguably Cummings). Michael Gove was pro-liberal arts (strangely this is seen as left-wing in America but right-wing in Britain) and anti-sport.
Traditional arts subjects like history and classics are even popular in the US with conservatives (Bush Jnr studied history, as did Newt Gingrich and Ron De Santis for example).
It is more subjects like sociology and gender studies they have a problem with
It's a genuine moral puzzle. Did these civilisations deserve to survive?
In particular, the Aztecs were basically the Nazis of MesoAmerica. Extremely aggressive, militaristic, ethnocentric, bloodthirsty, autocratic at the top and servile at the bottom, and absolutely obsessed with death and blood. They were so nasty even the other gruesome, human-sacrificing Mexican cultures hated them (which is one reason the Aztec Empire fell so easily to Cortez, he got the Aztecs' local enemies on side)
And yet a unique and remarkable civilisation - for all its hideous flaws - was totally obliterated, and much was lost
Was this ultimately good, or bad? I can never quite decide.
Of course such a civilisation did not deserve to survive. The same goes for the Roman Empire, the fall of which was much more protracted.
Why you're keen on Gabriele D'Annunzio defeats me. Who were analogous to the Nazis in Fiume?
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
It's a genuine moral puzzle. Did these civilisations deserve to survive?
In particular, the Aztecs were basically the Nazis of MesoAmerica. Extremely aggressive, militaristic, ethnocentric, bloodthirsty, autocratic at the top and servile at the bottom, and absolutely obsessed with death and blood. They were so nasty even the other gruesome, human-sacrificing Mexican cultures hated them (which is one reason the Aztec Empire fell so easily to Cortez, he got the Aztecs' local enemies on side)
And yet a unique and remarkable civilisation - for all its hideous flaws - was totally obliterated, and much was lost
Was this ultimately good, or bad? I can never quite decide.
Of course such a civilisation did not deserve to survive. The same goes for the Roman Empire, the fall of which was much more protracted.
Why you're keen on Gabriele D'Annunzio defeats me. Who were analogous to the Nazis in Fiume?
D'Annunzio was an artist. So he gets an Artists Dispensation.
That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.
Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.
The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
Yes but Thatcher and Major came from the lower middle class and working class to the upper middle class and back then most working class voters still voted Labour.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
As someone who has been to a lot of cricket matches, both international and domestic, I see plenty of drinking and no trouble. I've never felt threatened or scared at a cricket match in this country.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
Yes but Thatcher and Major came from the lower middle class and working class to the upper middle class and back then most working class voters still voted Labour.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
I'm not voting Labour.
I remain a conservative, my outlook on life and policies haven't changed, I've spent my life campaigning against socialism and lefties, I'm not going to vote for them, I'm just not enamoured by the current Tory party, particularly its leadership.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
I'd be astonished if the thought has never crossed her mind, even once. Regardless, probably my fault for using imprecise language, too. The Queen appears to have declined to seriously consider abdication. It doesn't follow that Charles would necessarily do the same. We currently have a Pope Emeritus in Rome, an Emperor Emeritus in Japan, and retirement for elderly crowned heads is a common occurrence in the remaining European monarchies.
That's still a pretty hefty lead in such seats, and the fact that the swing is to Labour, rather than the Lib Dems, would lessen Conservative losses.
Except that polls like this can't take into account the LD campaign effect. Remember punters gave the Tories a 95% chance of holding C&A right up to the final week. I regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset
If you regarded it as a 95% certain LD gain right from the outset then you were betting with your heart not your head.
The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
Not sure what relevance Libdem campaigning in by-elections has to General Elections tbh
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
I’m shocked at this revelation about TSE’s supposed Republican tendencies. Quite an accusation! Are you sure and lawyered up? Is he French?
For that last question alone, can I ask if you are "lawyered up"?
I reckon it is time to reintroduce pok-ta-pok: the Mesomaerican ball game (of the Maya, Aztecs, etc)
It is simple but quite compelling. Two teams of maybe four players each compete on a hard stone ball-court, not unlike a real tennis court. With bats, arms and hips they propel a large, firm rubber ball at each other and also at a stone hoop placed high to the side. Victory is achieved via points, or by slotting the ball through the hoop.
it's not a game for the faint hearted, however. For example, the ball is genuinely hard, and can cause severe bruising, internal injuries - even death in extreme cases. Also, at the end of the game the entire losing team is ritually sacrificed by decapitation, and after that they also sacrifice and dismember the entire winning team. And then the next teams play, for a while, with the severed heads and hands.
So it might not be quite in tune with the Woke agenda in British Olympics, but on the other hand the inquest into TeamGB's performance would be rendered largely pointless, thus saving money?
Perhaps just a tad severe...
Chariot racing and horse archery are both ancient disciplines ripe for revival. In a previous thread I also invented elephant javelin, but the provision of the necessary animals could prove somewhat challenging. Horse javelin could still be fantastic though.
Also, jousting.
Horse archery is allegedly possible because at the gallop horses have all 4 feet of the ground at one stage, giving you the still platform you need for archery. Elephants don't gallop, making javelin chucking problematic.
Elephants can get up a fair turn of speed, but yes, horses would be more practical.
My conception of the mounted javelin event (as distinct from how they would actually have been used by skirmishers in ancient warfare) is as follows: rider charges down a runway as fast as possible, utilising the momentum of the animal to help launch the projectile. The skill, rather as with traditional javelin, is to hurl the implement along an optimal trajectory and with as much force as possible, without crossing the line at the end of the track.
Co-ordinating the chucking of the spear and controlling the animal ought to make for a challenge and a spectacle!
Yes but does it work on ice?! This is what the people (me) want to know.
No problem. Make it elephant curling, and make the elephant hold the broom. Now that would be something to watch.
Oh come on.
If you have an elephant you should at least get the ice cleared by the competitor making the elephant sneeze with a supplied pot of pepper.
The point is that the modification of the ice surface has to be done subtly. It is no accident that a Scot created the dynanical electromagnetic field theory.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
As someone who has been to a lot of cricket matches, both international and domestic, I see plenty of drinking and no trouble. I've never felt threatened or scared at a cricket match in this country.
At Guildford one year a bunch knobheads were giving stick to Tim Bresnan. I thought he was going to walk up the stand and beat them up at one point.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
I’m shocked at this revelation about TSE’s supposed Republican tendencies. Quite an accusation! Are you sure and lawyered up? Is he French?
For that last question alone, can I ask if you are "lawyered up"?
He's safe.
I admitted on the morning thread that back in the day when I spoke fluent French my French was so good French people mistook me for a Frenchman,
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
I'd be astonished if the thought has never crossed her mind, even once. Regardless, probably my fault for using imprecise language, too. The Queen appears to have declined to seriously consider abdication. It doesn't follow that Charles would necessarily do the same. We currently have a Pope Emeritus in Rome, an Emperor Emeritus in Japan, and retirement for elderly crowned heads is a common occurrence in the remaining European monarchies.
Agreed, I suspect, assuming he becomes King in the next 5 years or so, Charles would hand over within 10 years.
That way William would become King in his fifties which would be an ideal time to take over and Charles and Camilla could enjoy their final years in peaceful retirement at Highgrove
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Lizzie (aka The Guv'nor) has at most around 5 years left. at that point chuck will be in his mid/late 70s. I've no doubt that he'll live as long as his parents so will have 15/20 years on the throne.
She might surprise us. Her ma made 101 despite being handicapped by the Gordon's in a way which Brenda isn't.
The Fuehrer had a clear vision of a modern Germany with Autobahnen (also convenient for internal LOC for switching fronts). So, as well as an Organization Todt to build the aforesaid A-bahnen, the approved members of the German Volk needed a nice cheap(ish) car to be part of the Volk community and go out for approved Volkish outings. And a motor industry to stimulate to provide factories which could be used to motorise the Wehrmacht (as, indeed, happened to the Vokswagen factory when the lines were switched from KdF-Wagen to Kuebelwagen and Schwimmwagen for the war effort - hence, IIRC. the raised suspension later used on the VW Bus).
You can draw your own comparison of Mr Johnson's clarity of overarching vision and consistency in pursuing his own aims.
On a tangent, the vehicle below, a Trippel SG6, popped up on the account of someone I follow on Twitter. Pride myself that I'm fairly clued up on this kind of stuff, but had never heard of it. The Nazi ended production because it was heavier, more powerful and expensive than the Volkswagen version, not their usual approach it has to be said.
While this is written and headlined in the Guardian's traditional 'we are all gloomy and doomed' this is a very reasonable and realistic account of the end game. I think we will be 75% there at Christmas, and back to whatever will be the normal by Easter. 650,000 people will die every year. Thousands of them will be Covid related. That's life.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
I’m shocked at this revelation about TSE’s supposed Republican tendencies. Quite an accusation! Are you sure and lawyered up? Is he French?
For that last question alone, can I ask if you are "lawyered up"?
He's safe.
I admitted on the morning thread that back in the day when I spoke fluent French my French was so good French people mistook me for a Frenchman,
I wonder if one is in more legal jeopardy for suggesting somebody might be French, or for suggesting one needs to be lawyered up for suggesting somebody might be French?
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
As someone who has been to a lot of cricket matches, both international and domestic, I see plenty of drinking and no trouble. I've never felt threatened or scared at a cricket match in this country.
At Guildford one year a bunch knobheads were giving stick to Tim Bresnan. I thought he was going to walk up the stand and beat them up at one point.
Bresnan wasn't averse to inviting sledging Aussie fielders to meet him out back.
I reckon it is time to reintroduce pok-ta-pok: the Mesomaerican ball game (of the Maya, Aztecs, etc)
It is simple but quite compelling. Two teams of maybe four players each compete on a hard stone ball-court, not unlike a real tennis court. With bats, arms and hips they propel a large, firm rubber ball at each other and also at a stone hoop placed high to the side. Victory is achieved via points, or by slotting the ball through the hoop.
it's not a game for the faint hearted, however. For example, the ball is genuinely hard, and can cause severe bruising, internal injuries - even death in extreme cases. Also, at the end of the game the entire losing team is ritually sacrificed by decapitation, and after that they also sacrifice and dismember the entire winning team. And then the next teams play, for a while, with the severed heads and hands.
So it might not be quite in tune with the Woke agenda in British Olympics, but on the other hand the inquest into TeamGB's performance would be rendered largely pointless, thus saving money?
Maybe Cortes was not too bad after all.
MesoAmerican cultures were ridiculously grisly, but that also makes them endlessly fascinating, in a macabre way
Whenever you think you have reached the depths of their depravity, they have the capacity to surprise on the downside. The Moche Culture of north Peru (circa 8th century AD) is particularly good at this. OMFG. They worshipped a tarantula God who demanded they sacrifice their own relatives, they gave the victims special drugs so the blood ran extra slow and the sacrifice took hours. During this process, the family would REDACTED REDACTED
Meanwhile the Aztecs could sacrifice thousands of people in a single day in their capital, Tenochtitlan
Here's a Guardian article denouncing the evil Spanish for destroying this marvellous culture, in particular it complains about
"massacres of some of our earliest thinkers such as the Aztec"
Plus most of them died from disease brought by the Spanish, not mass killing as they practiced themselves
It's a genuine moral puzzle. Did these civilisations deserve to survive?
In particular, the Aztecs were basically the Nazis of MesoAmerica. Extremely aggressive, militaristic, ethnocentric, bloodthirsty, autocratic at the top and servile at the bottom, and absolutely obsessed with death and blood. They were so nasty even the other gruesome, human-sacrificing Mexican cultures hated them (which is one reason the Aztec Empire fell so easily to Cortez, he got the Aztecs' local enemies on side)
And yet a unique and remarkable civilisation - for all its hideous flaws - was totally obliterated, and much was lost
Was this ultimately good, or bad? I can never quite decide.
Perhaps it was just neither. Looking for good and bad and trying to stand in judgement on history fulfills a deep need for meaning. But in an ultimate sense there is no good or bad: this endless story of conquest and empire is a feature of all human societies and never stops. The rejection of empire and conquest is particularly naive, because it is a feature of human nature. Reality can be paused, but eventually history resumes. Because of the absence of war we have lost sight of this basic insight, which means our chances of survival as a civilisation are limited.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
As someone who has been to a lot of cricket matches, both international and domestic, I see plenty of drinking and no trouble. I've never felt threatened or scared at a cricket match in this country.
At Guildford one year a bunch knobheads were giving stick to Tim Bresnan. I thought he was going to walk up the stand and beat them up at one point.
Never mess with a Yorkshire lad.
I'm really glad that cricket, like rugby union, doesn't need to segregate fans at crowds.
Not good news from Tunisia at all: over the last 20 days the case rate has fallen by 54% but the death rate has risen by 30%, using 7-day running averages. Let's hope daily deaths continue to fall from Thursday's one-day figure of 309. Fewer than 1 in 5 people in the country have been tested (at least that the government say they know about).
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
I'd be astonished if the thought has never crossed her mind, even once. Regardless, probably my fault for using imprecise language, too. The Queen appears to have declined to seriously consider abdication. It doesn't follow that Charles would necessarily do the same. We currently have a Pope Emeritus in Rome, an Emperor Emeritus in Japan, and retirement for elderly crowned heads is a common occurrence in the remaining European monarchies.
Agreed, I suspect, assuming he becomes King in the next 5 years or so, Charles would hand over within 10 years.
That way William would become King in his fifties which would be an ideal time to take over and Charles and Camilla could enjoy their final years in peaceful retirement at Highgrove
After waiting this long? Apart from anything else he won't know how he feels about being King, or Mills feels about being Queen, till they get there.
Having said that there was that kerfuffle about that wase of space Edward being promised the D of Edinburgh title and then not being promised it. Chas would need a dukedom to retire into so praps they are keeping it on ice for him.
It's a genuine moral puzzle. Did these civilisations deserve to survive?
In particular, the Aztecs were basically the Nazis of MesoAmerica. Extremely aggressive, militaristic, ethnocentric, bloodthirsty, autocratic at the top and servile at the bottom, and absolutely obsessed with death and blood. They were so nasty even the other gruesome, human-sacrificing Mexican cultures hated them (which is one reason the Aztec Empire fell so easily to Cortez, he got the Aztecs' local enemies on side)
And yet a unique and remarkable civilisation - for all its hideous flaws - was totally obliterated, and much was lost
Was this ultimately good, or bad? I can never quite decide.
Of course such a civilisation did not deserve to survive. The same goes for the Roman Empire, the fall of which was much more protracted.
Why you're keen on Gabriele D'Annunzio defeats me. Who were analogous to the Nazis in Fiume?
D'Annunzio only ruled Fiume for 15 months. He actually DECLARED WAR on Italy because the Italians agreed not to annex the city. And they promptly invaded in December 1920 to chase D'Annunzio out.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
That's precisely the point - it will be extremely easy to get rid of the royals, the instant they are deemed to have gone too far or crossed a line, so there's no need to act like it is hard, it's just people don't care to do it yet.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
Will KS do better than the JC of 2017? If he does he'll be PM.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
Yes but Thatcher and Major came from the lower middle class and working class to the upper middle class and back then most working class voters still voted Labour.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
I'm not voting Labour.
I remain a conservative, my outlook on life and policies haven't changed, I've spent my life campaigning against socialism and lefties, I'm not going to vote for them, I'm just enamoured by the current Tory party, particularly its leadership.
I noticed the small 'c'.
From what I can see, and despite what they may say to the contrary, both Johnson and Sunak are the most fiscally socialist PM and Chancellor in my lifetime.
If Johnson wasn't such a dick, I would be tempted to vote for an incumbent Government following the most left-wing economic agenda the UK has ever seen.
Oh and the Animal Farm style corruption and incompetence is on the scale of a dodgy 1970s Labour City Council Leader or Soviet President.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
I'd be astonished if the thought has never crossed her mind, even once. Regardless, probably my fault for using imprecise language, too. The Queen appears to have declined to seriously consider abdication. It doesn't follow that Charles would necessarily do the same. We currently have a Pope Emeritus in Rome, an Emperor Emeritus in Japan, and retirement for elderly crowned heads is a common occurrence in the remaining European monarchies.
Agreed, I suspect, assuming he becomes King in the next 5 years or so, Charles would hand over within 10 years.
That way William would become King in his fifties which would be an ideal time to take over and Charles and Camilla could enjoy their final years in peaceful retirement at Highgrove
After waiting this long? Apart from anything else he won't know how he feels about being King, or Mills feels about being Queen, till they get there.
Having said that there was that kerfuffle about that wase of space Edward being promised the D of Edinburgh title and then not being promised it. Chas would need a dukedom to retire into so praps they are keeping it on ice for him.
Charles I suspect would be far happier living at Highgrove as Duke of Edinburgh, promoting his organic produce and showing visitors around the garden than he would be as King.
He will do a few years as he has waited so long for it, then hand over the crown to William and Kate, who I suspect would enjoy the role far more than he and Camilla would and are more naturally Kings and Queens for the 21st century
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
It's the common thing in most monarchies. It's understandable Her Majesty won't, for all manner of reasons (though as a wide PBer said, a regency is not out of the question), but he does not have the same reasons, or likely faith.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
The problem is that certain events have attracted people who enjoy dressing up and drinking, have no interest in the actual event and can't hold their drink.
At Henley this is really off putting, if you actually want to watch the rowing....
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
I'd be astonished if the thought has never crossed her mind, even once. Regardless, probably my fault for using imprecise language, too. The Queen appears to have declined to seriously consider abdication. It doesn't follow that Charles would necessarily do the same. We currently have a Pope Emeritus in Rome, an Emperor Emeritus in Japan, and retirement for elderly crowned heads is a common occurrence in the remaining European monarchies.
Agreed, I suspect, assuming he becomes King in the next 5 years or so, Charles would hand over within 10 years.
That way William would become King in his fifties which would be an ideal time to take over and Charles and Camilla could enjoy their final years in peaceful retirement at Highgrove
After waiting this long? Apart from anything else he won't know how he feels about being King, or Mills feels about being Queen, till they get there.
Having said that there was that kerfuffle about that wase of space Edward being promised the D of Edinburgh title and then not being promised it. Chas would need a dukedom to retire into so praps they are keeping it on ice for him.
Charles I suspect would be far happier living at Highgrove as Duke of Edinburgh, promoting his organic produce and showing visitors around the garden than he would be as King.
He will do a few years as he has waited so long for it, then hand over the crown to William and Kate, who I suspect would enjoy the role far more than he and Camilla would and are more naturally Kings and Queens for the 21st century
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
I don't think she has refused to abdicate, any more than your continued existence is evidence you have refused to commit suicide. The question just hasn't arisen.
I'd be astonished if the thought has never crossed her mind, even once. Regardless, probably my fault for using imprecise language, too. The Queen appears to have declined to seriously consider abdication. It doesn't follow that Charles would necessarily do the same. We currently have a Pope Emeritus in Rome, an Emperor Emeritus in Japan, and retirement for elderly crowned heads is a common occurrence in the remaining European monarchies.
Agreed, I suspect, assuming he becomes King in the next 5 years or so, Charles would hand over within 10 years.
That way William would become King in his fifties which would be an ideal time to take over and Charles and Camilla could enjoy their final years in peaceful retirement at Highgrove
After waiting this long? Apart from anything else he won't know how he feels about being King, or Mills feels about being Queen, till they get there.
Having said that there was that kerfuffle about that wase of space Edward being promised the D of Edinburgh title and then not being promised it. Chas would need a dukedom to retire into so praps they are keeping it on ice for him.
Charles I suspect would be far happier living at Highgrove as Duke of Edinburgh, promoting his organic produce and showing visitors around the garden than he would be as King.
He will do a few years as he has waited so long for it, then hand over the crown to William and Kate, who I suspect would enjoy the role far more than he and Camilla would and are more naturally Kings and Queens for the 21st century
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
Far from it, monarchy and the landed estates are the essence of Toryism.
Don't forget this news from last year that I still assume is parody, that Prince Charles sees being King as his birthright - such arrogance.
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
Don't forget this news from last year that I still assume is parody, that Prince Charles sees being King as his birthright - such arrogance.
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
Pure guess, but MK sounds like the kind of place that would be younger than average, the sort of place people move to for work or to commute to London. Not the kind of place where people retire.
Working age people, especially younger people, split fairly comfortably for Labour.
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
If so they are very bad at it, since there's been oodles of change for decades, and Tories were governing for a lot of it.
I've always assumed they are merely, in general, more cautious about change, not opposed to it.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
Will KS do better than the JC of 2017? If he does he'll be PM.
That is the question. he won't be up against the Maybot but there's also no saying that he'll be up against BJ.
It's a genuine moral puzzle. Did these civilisations deserve to survive?
In particular, the Aztecs were basically the Nazis of MesoAmerica. Extremely aggressive, militaristic, ethnocentric, bloodthirsty, autocratic at the top and servile at the bottom, and absolutely obsessed with death and blood. They were so nasty even the other gruesome, human-sacrificing Mexican cultures hated them (which is one reason the Aztec Empire fell so easily to Cortez, he got the Aztecs' local enemies on side)
And yet a unique and remarkable civilisation - for all its hideous flaws - was totally obliterated, and much was lost
Was this ultimately good, or bad? I can never quite decide.
Of course such a civilisation did not deserve to survive. The same goes for the Roman Empire, the fall of which was much more protracted.
Why you're keen on Gabriele D'Annunzio defeats me. Who were analogous to the Nazis in Fiume?
D'Annunzio only ruled Fiume for 15 months. He actually DECLARED WAR on Italy because the Italians agreed not to annex the city. And they promptly invaded in December 1920 to chase D'Annunzio out.
Because democratic Italy wasn't keen on DIY Fascist empires in the name of Italy. Which violated treaties Italy was a signatory to.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
Blair won Milton Keynes North from 1997-2005
Yes, I know, but he also won lots of other south-eastern seats that are now way out of reach for Labour now.
I can only assume MK has lots of young professional homeowners and London exiles plus students in the mix.
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
Pure guess, but MK sounds like the kind of place that would be younger than average, the sort of place people move to for work or to commute to London. Not the kind of place where people retire.
Working age people, especially younger people, split fairly comfortably for Labour.
Don't forget this news from last year that I still assume is parody, that Prince Charles sees being King as his birthright - such arrogance.
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
Will KS do better than the JC of 2017? If he does he'll be PM.
That is the question. he won't be up against the Maybot but there's also no saying that he'll be up against BJ.
Ironically the biggest gainers from Starmer's leadership have been the LDs in the South, as middle class Tory Remainers feel safe to vote LD with Starmer as LOTO than they did with Corbyn.
However with working class Leave voters in the RedWall Starmer has made no progress at all and in some cases gone backwards as in Hartlepool
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
I think Labour can realistically gain 30-40 seats from the Tories but will majorly struggle to gain more than that considering that Labour only made a net gain of 30 in 2017. I think the best Labour can hope for is a sort of Con 40 Lab 38 type scenario and hope the Lib Dems somehow do a lot of heavy lifting in the south.
I can say things in French. But if I ask a question and receive a reply, usually I have no idea what the other person has said.
We should just teach kids how to order a coffee, order a beer and say 'I love you' in a dozen languages and settle for that.
My father said wryly that he learned French for 6 years at Winchester, and then took a trip to Paris;he found he was unable to ask the inspector when they would arrive.
I was educated in French only until I was 12 and couldn't really write English at that age. When I got to English speaking schools in the US and UK I was amazed at how little grammar was taught compared to my Francophone education.
Now that I'm a language tutor I see the same situation among British students. Teaching Latin would help slightly as they would be exposed to grammatical concepts like declension. There is almost no declension in English but it's very important in other languages. I regularly see anglophone students struggle with it in Russian.
It could be fixed much more effectively by teaching Linguistics rather than Latin but that would not stimulate the desiccated G spots of Telegraph readers with type 2 diabetes in the same way so the tories won't do it.
I wonder if the Latin is because its full of gender to troll the wokists?
Also - because it gives those parents with money to send their brats to private schools an advantage? At the moment Latin can't seriously be used as an educational criterion. It's like an O level in sheep-farming - only the Welsh, etc., have a hope of doing it. But make it a general educational qualification ...
Rachel Johnson (as in sister of ...) suggested rote learning of the classics was a soft route to Oxford.
So why would Tories want more competition for their children's life chances?
Tokenism. The Universities might dump the classics if it became obvious they are an upper middle class scam. You want a trickle of comp school entrants to point at and claim how inclusive it all is.
There is not much to dump, the only universities which still do pure Classics/Latin degrees are Oxford and Cambridge, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Exeter and Nottingham, Manchester, Bristol, KCL and UCL and Royal Holloway.
They are all pretty posh universities anyway
So?
If cutting the classics means an instant downwards improvement to the posho-meter reading , to help meet the targets mandated by government, they'll have to consider it very seriously.
It is dumbing down and would make barely any difference whatsoever, as they are tiny courses anyway.
We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care, we support selection on merit and high academic standards, hence Williamson is pushing Latin in state schools. So if they want to suck up to Williamson if anything universities will expand their classics courses and do state school outreach for them.
Plus not all classics students will be privately educated and Oxbridge are 60% state school now anyway
‘Leading Tory says they “do not care” about state schools’
You need to be more careful about your choice of words if you want to progress in politics
What an absurd distortion of what I said.
I did not once say 'I do not care about state schools', merely I want selection on merit. If anything I care more than Carnyx as like Williamson I want to spread Latin in our state schools and expand excellence in them (a few more grammars would help too).
If you would prefer to keep excellence and Latin confined to your alma mater of Eton and a few top public schools and a conveyor belt to Oxbridge and the top professions like law and medicine and banking that is your affair
“ We Tories are in power and in government and have set no state school target, we are not Labour and do not care”
“We Tories… have set no state school target, we … do not care”
Of course it’s absurd. But that’s a direct quote.
It’s meant as friendly advice, so don’t get upset.
Yes, the whole point of being a Tory is we don't believe in setting socialist style targets for state school admissions to leading universities like Oxbridge.
We believe in treating private and state school applicants equally on merit. We do not care about equality of outcome and state school targets. ' Otherwise what is the point in being a Tory? Your 'friendly advice' is to stop being a Tory as far as I can see
I thought the whole bit of being a Tory was to resist change and tut at people who don't know their place.
"I think that the principle of the Conservative Party is jealousy of liberty and of the people, only qualified by fear; but I think the principle of the Liberal Party is trust in the people, only qualified by prudence." - William Gladstone, 1878.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
That was because he was up against the Maybot. and also the expectations were so low. 2019 is a more accurate example of how well he was received.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
It's the common thing in most monarchies. It's understandable Her Majesty won't, for all manner of reasons (though as a wide PBer said, a regency is not out of the question), but he does not have the same reasons, or likely faith.
I remember the regency rumours circulating two or three years ago, at which point it was suggested that the Queen planned to retire at 95. That point's been and gone, and Prince Philip has died in the meantime, but there are still no signs that she intends to go into any form of retirement.
None of us really knows, of course - if Her Maj makes it to 100 she might finally think it's time to take it easy - but as things stand it looks like a regency is only a live possibility if she's incapacitated by illness.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
Blair won Milton Keynes North from 1997-2005
Yes, I know, but he also won lots of other south-eastern seats that are now way out of reach for Labour now.
I can only assume MK has lots of young professional homeowners and London exiles plus students in the mix.
London exiles I think.
I think it why one demographics wrangler at a pollster thinks Reading West goes Labour next time.
On topic, it's an interesting poll but doesn't offer many clues as to the next GE.
The fall in the Conservative vote, while welcome, isn't likely in and of itself to translate into a lot of seat changes as long as the opposition vote remains fragmented.
We have seen in previous elections how the anti-Conservative vote can, under the right circumstances, be extremely efficient in defeating Conservative incumbents. We also know that while there may be "informal understandings" between the Greens and LDs in particular, there will be no formal electoral alliance nor anything of the kind of a "progressive alliance" (whatever that means).
That said, we also know well-organised and targeted campaigning can be highly effective in bringing the combined anti-Conservative vote under a single banner, be that Green, LD or Labour (or possibly Independent).
That's the challenge for the opposition in 2024 - the Conservatives will be fighting on many fronts in hundreds of seats - the opposition will, if they have any sense, target their resources and messages accordingly and appropriately only working where they can win.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
Lord’s is not the only ground to have witnessed rowdy scenes during the new competition and it emerged last week that alcohol-free zones could be introduced at matches at the Oval.
There's been trouble at the geegees too, notably Glorious Goodwood yesterday. Rumour is it is not just booze and the cricket authorities need also to ban, erm, icing sugar.
The problem is that certain events have attracted people who enjoy dressing up and drinking, have no interest in the actual event and can't hold their drink.
At Henley this is really off putting, if you actually want to watch the rowing....
The point is, it is not just drink any more. There's also steroids and coke.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
I know that until now you have been known as a committed royalist, so it is surprising that you have chosen to focus on a story that begins “the chairman of the Conservative Party profited...” into a reason to get rid of the monarchy. But clearly you must have been shaken to your core by the story so perhaps it must truly be devastating for Prince Charles’ future, to discover that some of his charities might not have received money for totally altruistic reasons...
As a republican liberal non Tory, TSE of course has no interest in the future of the monarchy.
Indeed post Brexit and post Dave he has no interest in the future of the Tory Party either, hence he votes LD.
Personally I think Ben Elliott has done a fine job raising funds for the Party and the charities of the Prince of Wales
Christ you are so wrong on so many levels but we all know that.
We know TSE the Tories are far too common for you now and have been ever since your heroes Dave and George left, you clearly can't stand being in the same party as common working class Brexit voting patriots who love the royal family.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
You are so full of bollocks you're the human jock strap.
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
Yes but Thatcher and Major came from the lower middle class and working class to the upper middle class and back then most working class voters still voted Labour.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
I'm not voting Labour.
I remain a conservative, my outlook on life and policies haven't changed, I've spent my life campaigning against socialism and lefties, I'm not going to vote for them, I'm just enamoured by the current Tory party, particularly its leadership.
I noticed the small 'c'.
From what I can see, and despite what they may say to the contrary, both Johnson and Sunak are the most fiscally socialist PM and Chancellor in my lifetime.
If Johnson wasn't such a dick, I would be tempted to vote for an incumbent Government following the most left-wing economic agenda the UK has ever seen.
Oh and the Animal Farm style corruption and incompetence is on the scale of a dodgy 1970s Labour City Council Leader or Soviet President.
I wouldn't say this is a socialist government. They are more like a regular government in the 1945-1970's model; but one with little ideology bar some reasonable sound principles (not overtaxing people, keeping some freedoms intact, not believing the state can be a way of achieving progress) that is somehow muddling through with more than a few dodgy dealings and a dangerous amount of borrowing.
Fortunately for the Tories there are only 2 seats in the top 100 Labour target seats that are Tory held and in the South East or East and which voted Remain ie Wycombe and Reading West. So a 6% swing to Labour in the South and East in Tory held Remain seats is not a big concern for the blues, though it would be for Steve Baker in Wycombe.
The vast majority of Tory held Remain seats in the South East have the LDs as the main challengers but there is just a 1% swing to the LDs on this poll from the Tories, so it would need major Labour tactical voting for the Tories to be concerned at the seats going yellow and even then they should narrowly hold onto a majority if they hold the Redwall
If the green and LibDem vote deploys strategically, things would look better.
YouGov’s own map identifies nine of its chosen seats that would fall to Labour based on its polling, with LibDems gaining three and a further four that are too close to call.
Here's the list;
CON TO LAB: - Chingford & Woodford Green - Chipping Barent - Filton & Bradley Stoke - Hendon - Kensington & Chelsea - Milton Keynes N - Stroud - Truro & Falmouth - Wycombe
Considering the way that Lab and Lib Dem tore chunks out of each other in 2019, surely some tactical unwind is going to be expected? Take Batley + Spen, where it looks like there was just enough of a Lib to Lab shift for Kim Leadbetter to fend of the catty one. That can fairly easily lead to fewer Lib Dem votes and more seats- look at the history of the Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80's and 90's. What matters for the Lib Dems is getting votes in the right places, not national swing.
More generally, the efficiency of the anti-Conservative vote is at least as important as the size of the Conservative vote. May 2017 got a much higher percentage share of the vote than Cameron 2015, but fewer seats.
FWIW I can see all those seats falling in the right circumstances. I looked them all up and the analysis is credible.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I can see those seats going in the right circumstances, the problem is that there's still too many unknowns as to whether the next election will bring them. given the majority, there's no need for the Tories to go to the country again for another couple of years.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
JC did rather well on his first outing in 2017.
If by "rather well", you actually mean:
* He got 55 fewer seats than May * He only won four more seats than Brown did in 2010 * He didn't become PM after the election
Always a quote. Taken out of context no doubt, that context still being a beginner in the sexually incontinent narcissist desperate to spray his genetic blueprint all over the shop stakes.
What a bunch of sleazoids. How do we get rid of these unelected rulers?
The chairman of the Conservative Party profited from giving ultra-wealthy clients of his concierge company Quintessentially access to Prince Charles, a major party donor alleges today.
Ben Elliot, 45, the Duchess of Cornwall’s nephew, introduced a member of the “elite” tier of his luxury concierge company to the future king after he had paid his company tens of thousands of pounds.
Mohamed Amersi, 61, a telecoms millionaire, had paid an annual fee of £15,000 to be an elite member of Quintessentially, Elliot’s luxury business, for several years before it organised in 2013 for him to fly to meet the prince over an intimate dinner at Dumfries House in Scotland.
As a result of the introduction made by Elliot, Amersi became a member of the prince’s inner circle and a trustee of one of his charities. He has since donated more than £1.2 million to the prince’s charities.
According to leaked emails, Elliot responded to news of Amersi’s first donation to his uncle by writing: “Well done.”
In a video interview from his Mayfair home, Amersi described this arrangement as “access capitalism”.
Amersi’s allegations, supported by documents and by the testimony of an aristocratic whistleblower, will raise serious doubts at the apex of the establishment about Elliot’s conduct and pose the uncomfortable question of whether he has used his royal relations to bolster his business and his political position.
They also pose difficult questions for Prince Charles, including whether he knew that his wife’s nephew was organising for ultra-wealthy clients to meet him.
All it needs is for a sufficiency of people in the right parts of the country to decide that they'd rather have the alternative, even if he's a bit boring, vague and lefty, and will simultaneously betray Brexit and not do enough to thwart it.
It's that easy and that difficult, but being voted out is literally the only thing that has brought a political party to its senses, ever.
But how do we get rid of the Royals?
Although five years of King Charles III should do the trick.
Far from it, he will make a fine monarch, ahead of his time already on issues like climate change and with a keen interest in heritage and architecture. The Princes Trust has also done great work with young people.
However he is unlikely to have a long reign. Much as Edward VII became King at 60 and only reigned for 9 years before death after the 64 year reign of his mother Queen Victoria. Charles will become King even later, he is already over 70 and his mother, Queen Elizabeth IInd has been on the throne even longer than Victoria for 69 years.
Much as Edward VII was squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, George Vth, so Charles will likely be squeezed between the significantly longer reigns of his mother and his son, William Vth.
However there is no reason Charles IIIrd cannot have a perfectly good reign in his short time as his great great grandfather did
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Although you appear to be assuming that Charles will follow his mother's example and refuse to abdicate if and when he reaches a very advanced age. I'm not so sure.
It's the common thing in most monarchies. It's understandable Her Majesty won't, for all manner of reasons (though as a wide PBer said, a regency is not out of the question), but he does not have the same reasons, or likely faith.
I remember the regency rumours circulating two or three years ago, at which point it was suggested that the Queen planned to retire at 95. That point's been and gone, and Prince Philip has died in the meantime, but there are still no signs that she intends to go into any form of retirement.
None of us really knows, of course - if Her Maj makes it to 100 she might finally think it's time to take it easy - but as things stand it looks like a regency is only a live possibility if she's incapacitated by illness.
I think that is right, or at least that she personally feels too frail to do some number of regular engagements.
And from her point of view, she won't have many dogs left soon, she may not be able to ride, she cannot spend time with her husband and she can see her family anytime she likes anyway, she may as well continue on.
I reckon it is time to reintroduce pok-ta-pok: the Mesomaerican ball game (of the Maya, Aztecs, etc)
It is simple but quite compelling. Two teams of maybe four players each compete on a hard stone ball-court, not unlike a real tennis court. With bats, arms and hips they propel a large, firm rubber ball at each other and also at a stone hoop placed high to the side. Victory is achieved via points, or by slotting the ball through the hoop.
it's not a game for the faint hearted, however. For example, the ball is genuinely hard, and can cause severe bruising, internal injuries - even death in extreme cases. Also, at the end of the game the entire losing team is ritually sacrificed by decapitation, and after that they also sacrifice and dismember the entire winning team. And then the next teams play, for a while, with the severed heads and hands.
So it might not be quite in tune with the Woke agenda in British Olympics, but on the other hand the inquest into TeamGB's performance would be rendered largely pointless, thus saving money?
Yes, seconded. Get that on the Red Button and I'd watch.
But look, "Woke" is yet again being mistreated here. This poor wretch of a word has been dragged so far from its core definition (see below) as to become almost valueless. It's become a linguistic piece of junk.
"To be not in denial that white supremacy racism and the patriarchy have played - and continue to play - a key and malign role in forging the world we live in."
The PB.com blogging community are an educated bunch, skilled in language, and so I think we should be able to distinguish ourselves from the herd and use this word properly.
So what is “the patriarchy” and why do they continue to play a malign role in society?
Other than in Michael Douglas films it's an 'It' rather than a 'They'.
I'd describe the Patriarchy as a state of affairs where power is wielded mainly by men, and where the power that women do have is derived mainly through men, or by courtesy of men.
Why is this malign? Because it shortchanges half the population.
Why is it still around today? Because those who benefit from it are disproportionately powerful.
Why are they disproportionately powerful? ... Because they are men. Boom Boom.
So effectively being woke resolves to “must overthrow the people in power”?
No way. Nothing like as fruity.
"Woke" means only what I said - not in denial that white supremacy racism and the patriarchy have played, and continue to play, a key and malign role in forging the world we live in. It doesn't mean you have to DO anything about it. You can be active woke or lazy woke. Although "lazy" is harsh since overturning entrenched power structures and deep seated assumptions is very thirsty work indeed.
We're just talking about the meaning of the word. Woke = that.
And therefore "not Woke" means NOT not in denial that white supremacy racism and the patriarchy have played, and continue to play, a key and malign role in ... etc.
If you apply this to all those who noisily self-identify as "not Woke" - ie those who make a bit of a deal of it - you will find it is 100% accurate.
Go ahead, give it a whirl.
I don't think Woke originally meant that - it meant being "awoken" to social injustice.
I agree it's become to mean what you say it does though, and I disagree with it.
You started doing VII then remembered that doesn't annoy people enough and switched to VIIth etc.
Historical data are not very useful for assessing contemp life expectancy. His dad did 99, his Mum is what 95 and counting, and the present trend is for people to live longer than their parents. He doesn't look as lean and austere as either parent, which counts against him, but it's amazing what doctors can do to ameliorate the effects of the horrid CV events which are the result of being fattish and jolly. He's going to be around for some time.
Lizzie (aka The Guv'nor) has at most around 5 years left. at that point chuck will be in his mid/late 70s. I've no doubt that he'll live as long as his parents so will have 15/20 years on the throne.
She might surprise us. Her ma made 101 despite being handicapped by the Gordon's in a way which Brenda isn't.
How many PMs do we think she has left? Another two after Johnson? I'm assuming that whoever comes after Johnson won't last very long, because of the enormous mess he will have left behind.
Comments
A spectator may bring into Lord's either:
one bottle of wine or Champagne (max. 750ml);
or two cans or bottles of beer or cider (max. 500ml);
or two cans of premixed aperitifs (max. 330ml).
No spectator will be re-admitted if in possession of alcohol.
https://twitter.com/shayan86/status/1421499327164334081?s=21
And shutting down non-STEM subjects was not Gove (arguably Cummings). Michael Gove was pro-liberal arts (strangely this is seen as left-wing in America but right-wing in Britain) and anti-sport.
I’m going to watch top class cricket (from India, anyway), not to get hammered.
So you vote LD which is your natural home as the party of snobbish liberal Remainers
My dog Dilyn can't control his romantic urges, says Boris Johnson
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57987491
It is more subjects like sociology and gender studies they have a problem with
Why you're keen on Gabriele D'Annunzio defeats me. Who were analogous to the Nazis in Fiume?
I joined the Tory party because of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, two PMs from humble backgrounds, so wrong on that front.
I only voted Lib Dem in my specific constituency because I didn't want a Corbynite as my MP but I've mentioned on here I will not be voting Lib Dem at any future election because Vera Hobhouse sits on the front bench and she should be sacked because of her views on 5G.
See Ezra Pound and Dali.......
The fact it was a Lib Dem gain in reality doesn't change that.
Now, shock horror, most working class voters voter Tory, though I could see even you might vote for Starmer Labour as Labour is now more middle class than it has ever been
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBjIxd4zRY8
I remain a conservative, my outlook on life and policies haven't changed, I've spent my life campaigning against socialism and lefties, I'm not going to vote for them, I'm just not enamoured by the current Tory party, particularly its leadership.
Saffers should have been down to 14 men at least from the first half onwards.
I have no idea where the large Labour vote in Milton Keynes North has come from, but there's no denying it's there. It was huge in 2017 and still hefty in 2019.
I admitted on the morning thread that back in the day when I spoke fluent French my French was so good French people mistook me for a Frenchman,
That way William would become King in his fifties which would be an ideal time to take over and Charles and Camilla could enjoy their final years in peaceful retirement at Highgrove
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/31/uk-can-expect-thousands-of-covid-deaths-every-year-warn-scientists
CDC leak, summary and full report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsRdICFRHcc
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/15/britishidentity.charlottehiggins
Arbeia is well worth a visit if anyone is in South Shields.
A Roman fort surrounded by back-to-back terraced housing on all sides.
Rassie Erasmus is the worst South African since Hansie Cronje, actually no, he's in worse than Hendrik Verwoerd.
You know Hendrik Verwoerd was a bad man, his middle name was French*, tells you everything.
*Spelled Frensch.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/31/uk-can-expect-thousands-of-covid-deaths-every-year-warn-scientists
I'm really glad that cricket, like rugby union, doesn't need to segregate fans at crowds.
Validity of try decision depends on VAR protocols really.
who will be PM then? what will the economy be like? will Covid be 'something we just deal with'? The country rarely looks at a LOTO properly until a GE has actually been called, KS will do better than JC but that's a low bar, how much better won't be known for some time.
Having said that there was that kerfuffle about that wase of space Edward being promised the D of Edinburgh title and then not being promised it. Chas would need a dukedom to retire into so praps they are keeping it on ice for him.
If he does he'll be PM.
From what I can see, and despite what they may say to the contrary, both Johnson and Sunak are the most fiscally socialist PM and Chancellor in my lifetime.
If Johnson wasn't such a dick, I would be tempted to vote for an incumbent Government following the most left-wing economic agenda the UK has ever seen.
Oh and the Animal Farm style corruption and incompetence is on the scale of a dodgy 1970s Labour City Council Leader or Soviet President.
He will do a few years as he has waited so long for it, then hand over the crown to William and Kate, who I suspect would enjoy the role far more than he and Camilla would and are more naturally Kings and Queens for the 21st century
At Henley this is really off putting, if you actually want to watch the rowing....
Socialism is state control of most of the economy
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/inside-prince-charles-plans-if-queen-elizabeth-steps-down/
Working age people, especially younger people, split fairly comfortably for Labour.
I've always assumed they are merely, in general, more cautious about change, not opposed to it.
Funny that.
I can only assume MK has lots of young professional homeowners and London exiles plus students in the mix.
Doesn't apply in places like Basingstoke though.
However with working class Leave voters in the RedWall Starmer has made no progress at all and in some cases gone backwards as in Hartlepool
- William Gladstone, 1878.
None of us really knows, of course - if Her Maj makes it to 100 she might finally think it's time to take it easy - but as things stand it looks like a regency is only a live possibility if she's incapacitated by illness.
I think it why one demographics wrangler at a pollster thinks Reading West goes Labour next time.
On topic, it's an interesting poll but doesn't offer many clues as to the next GE.
The fall in the Conservative vote, while welcome, isn't likely in and of itself to translate into a lot of seat changes as long as the opposition vote remains fragmented.
We have seen in previous elections how the anti-Conservative vote can, under the right circumstances, be extremely efficient in defeating Conservative incumbents. We also know that while there may be "informal understandings" between the Greens and LDs in particular, there will be no formal electoral alliance nor anything of the kind of a "progressive alliance" (whatever that means).
That said, we also know well-organised and targeted campaigning can be highly effective in bringing the combined anti-Conservative vote under a single banner, be that Green, LD or Labour (or possibly Independent).
That's the challenge for the opposition in 2024 - the Conservatives will be fighting on many fronts in hundreds of seats - the opposition will, if they have any sense, target their resources and messages accordingly and appropriately only working where they can win.
The second question for the Opposition is what to do if they are able to deny the Conservatives a minority - that starts with Labour thinking about how a minority administration might operate and how and on what basis they might seek confidence & supply (at the very least) support from other parties.
* He got 55 fewer seats than May
* He only won four more seats than Brown did in 2010
* He didn't become PM after the election
Taken out of context no doubt, that context still being a beginner in the sexually incontinent narcissist desperate to spray his genetic blueprint all over the shop stakes.
https://twitter.com/leepatrick1001/status/1421541410004774912?s=20
And from her point of view, she won't have many dogs left soon, she may not be able to ride, she cannot spend time with her husband and she can see her family anytime she likes anyway, she may as well continue on.
Check out the Dalai Lama.
I agree it's become to mean what you say it does though, and I disagree with it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/31/tibet-and-china-clash-over-next-reincarnation-of-the-dalai-lama