politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the betting markets a March 29th UK Brexit down from a 71%
Comments
-
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.0 -
"How can you have your pudding if you won't eat your meat?!?"HYUFD said:
The ERG were never going to allow any compromise with the EU whoever was PM, what May is sensibly now doing is forcing the ERG to either accept her Deal or risk no Brexit at all, rather like a mother telling her unruly children you may want steak and chips but it is chicken and boiled potatoes for you tonight otherwise no dinner at allanother_richard said:
Which may have something to do with May being utterly incapable of selling her deal.HYUFD said:
It will not be May not securing Brexit, she has a Deal to enable Brexit, it will be a majority of MPs voting for lengthy extension of Article 50 and EUref2 or BINO to avoid No Dealanother_richard said:
And that will all be worthless if May cannot secure Brexit.HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed foranother_richard said:
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.SeanT said:
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.HYUFD said:
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.0 -
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism0 -
When the unity of the ruling class starts to crack, the revolution is near.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.0 -
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝0 -
And you don't think some Remainers also tried to make political capital about that unfortunate death.Theuniondivvie said:0 -
Also Aaron Banks is a known prickTheAncientMariner said:
And you don't think some Remainers also tried to make political capital about that unfortunate death.Theuniondivvie said:
I’m not sure that “prick acts like a prick” moves the dial much0 -
To arms!rpjs said:
When the unity of the ruling class starts to crack, the revolution is near.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.0 -
I never had any doubt!Charles said:
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝0 -
'Let's not talk about a very specific Leave prick featuring in tonight's news, what about non specific Remainers?'TheAncientMariner said:
And you don't think some Remainers also tried to make political capital about that unfortunate death.Theuniondivvie said:0 -
You have a Mail reader in the family ?Charles said:
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝
The shame.
0 -
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%justin124 said:
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed foranother_richard said:
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.SeanT said:
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.HYUFD said:
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.0 -
No wonder he preferred to hint that it was insider knowledge.Nigelb said:
You have a Mail reader in the family ?Charles said:
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝
The shame.0 -
-
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism0 -
This masterchef contestant must be another one of corbyns extended family.....0
-
John O'Groats! Did you like the Clip of 'Grimsby' I posted? Why do you think Mrs May chose to make her keynote speech there..... Do you think she wanted Barnier to feel sorry for us?GIN1138 said:0 -
Of course. “The wives of the people who run the country” remember.Nigelb said:
You have a Mail reader in the family ?Charles said:
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.TOPPING said:
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!Charles said:
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?TOPPING said:
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
You never know who might be reading.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝
The shame.0 -
Why? Are they cooking books?Scrapheap_as_was said:This masterchef contestant must be another one of corbyns extended family.....
0 -
I DID NOT SEE THAT COMINGScott_P said:0 -
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.0 -
No, it's not backwards reasoning at all. We are attracted to beauty because it indicates health, and therefore good breeding material. Of course, in many cases these ideals are taken to the extreme, but they have their roots in the same basic principle.viewcode said:
Is that backwards reasoning? Does health define beauty, instead of beauty betokening health? Black teeth is considered beautiful in geisha, iirc. Modern western standards of beauty now encompass overlarge breasts in women and unfeasibly large muscles in men, neither of which can be realistically achieved without drugs or surgery. Foot-binding is excruciatingly unhealthy. Face tattoos are difficult to defend as healthy but are on the rise. Lip implants can be grotesque. Heroin chic and anorexia have been held up as beautifulLuckyguy1983 said:
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.SeanT said:
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...IanB2 said:
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.SeanT said:ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)0 -
Argentina football legend Diego Maradona is to acknowledge paternity of three Cuban children, his lawyer says.
This means the 58-year-old World Cup winner, who once denied any children other than with his former wife, is now the official father of eight children.0 -
And the differences were often personal not political.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
My family became Tories because we disliked Sarah Churchill (we were close to Abigail Masham) and because we opposed the foundation of the Bank of England.0 -
And his job is a love psychologist......ydoethur said:
Why? Are they cooking books?Scrapheap_as_was said:This masterchef contestant must be another one of corbyns extended family.....
0 -
Meritocracy? Since 2010 the Conservatives have been the party of the old school tie and fuck business.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.0 -
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.0 -
-
-
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
I actually did send full details last night regarding the latest Panelbase Voting Intentions poll for Holyrood and Westminster with my comments on the data. For the latter Labour is recorded at 22%..felix said:
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%justin124 said:
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed foranother_richard said:
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.SeanT said:
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.HYUFD said:
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.0 -
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
Of course you did - frankly your constant attempts to re-write polls in favour of JC, whom you pretend not to like, are laughable. No-one is convinced by it and maybe you should leave the data to the professionals and focus on Labour's bigger problems of the anti-semitism with which your party is clearly infested.justin124 said:
I actually did send full details last night regarding the latest Panelbase Voting Intentions poll for Holyrood and Westminster with my comments on the data. For the latter Labour is recorded at 22%..felix said:
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%justin124 said:
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed foranother_richard said:
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.SeanT said:
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.HYUFD said:
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.0 -
Why does May bother with this charade?0
-
Even now the Tories get their strongest support in rural areas and villages, many with farming families and families from the gentry going back centuries.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Indeed It is possible we could return to 18th and 19th and early 20th century politics if the Tories become the party of Brexit, rural areas and small business, TIG and the Liberals the party of Remain and big business and the towns and wealthier parts of big cities and socialist Corbynism retains its hold over Labour in the inner cities0 -
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.0 -
I have sometimes wondered why those Liberals who split with Gladstone in 1886 over Ireland - to become Liberal Unionists - did not switch back to the Liberals in the 1920s when the issue had ceased to be divisive. Obviously many - such as Joseph Chamberlain - were dead by that time , but why did the likes of Austen and Nevile not seriously consider returning to their father's Radical roots?ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established orderSunil_Prasannan said:
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and s.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism0 -
(1) As you say, most of them were dead. Most of the rest had changed their views. Oddly the only other Liberal Unionist still active in politics in the 1920s was the standard bearer of the right, Joynson-Hicks. (2) Austen Chamberlain does seem to have considered fashioning a new party with Lloyd George in 1921-22, but he couldn't carry the backbenchers or the wider party members with him (although neither he nor Neville ever used the label 'Conservative' even after it was officially readopted in 1925) (3) why should they do what their father did? My father and I have very different political views and I have no intention of changing that.justin124 said:
I have sometimes wondered why those Liberals who split with Gladstone in 1886 over Ireland - to become Liberal Unionists - did not switch back to the Liberals in the 1920s when the issue had ceased to be divisive. Obviously many - such as Joseph Chamberlain - were dead by that time , but why did the likes of Austen and Nevile not seriously consider returning to their father's Radical roots?ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.HYUFD said:
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established orderSunil_Prasannan said:
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and s.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
0 -
God only knows. It's all very well if we accept that she really thinks her way is best for the UK, but she's not deaf or blind, and even if she was there are ways to communicate and she knows what she would like is not happening. That means a probably painful alternative is going to happen, so why not try to have some agency and choose another path, mitigate what she thinks is a less good outcome? Better than pretending like she has.Jonathan said:Why does May bother with this charade?
0 -
They do like to hang out at my favourite coffee shopdixiedean said:
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.Charles said:
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.0 -
Hope nobody has money on the West Indies to win the T20....0
-
ALDI = Alliance of LibDem Independents?dixiedean said:
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
TESCO = Tory Economic Superiority Confirmed to be Ordinary?
ASDA = Association of Social Democrat Associations?
LIDL = Loony Idiots Democratically Legalised
0 -
Do you mean National Liberal?ydoethur said:
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.Charles said:
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)0 -
You can laugh as much as you like. As it happens , for over 10 years I did some professional work for BBC Local Radio as a psephologist and was never accused of bias.Indeed back in 1996 when I was still a Labour Party member ,I recall broadcasting on the Local Elections Results programme and commenting to the effect that the results - although poor - were better for the Tories than had been the case in 1995. I was accused by party members - who did not know me - of being a Tory. They were somewhat taken aback to be then informed by others that a few hours earlier I had been knocking up for a Labour candidate.felix said:
Of course you did - frankly your constant attempts to re-write polls in favour of JC, whom you pretend not to like, are laughable. No-one is convinced by it and maybe you should leave the data to the professionals and focus on Labour's bigger problems of the anti-semitism with which your party is clearly infested.justin124 said:
I actually did send full details last night regarding the latest Panelbase Voting Intentions poll for Holyrood and Westminster with my comments on the data. For the latter Labour is recorded at 22%..felix said:
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%justin124 said:
red.HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed foranother_richard said:
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.SeanT said:
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.HYUFD said:
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
I did not renew my membership in 1997 , and did not vote Labour at a Parliamentary Election again until 2015. For the next election , I am a firmly committed Spoilt Ballot Paper supporter - and I will not be emotionally blackmailed by people telling me that I live in a key marginal seat.0 -
They appear to be unaware that the original form of that aphorism as penned by noted Islamophobe Voltaire has the opposite meaning to that which they think.Harris_Tweed said:
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
i.e. Some people will counsel compromise but do not heed them.0 -
You are completely wrong. The last prominent Liberal Unionist was Neville Chamberlain. He became first a Unionist, then a National MP and died in 1940. The party was formally wound up in 1912 and its assets and members transferred to the new Unionist and Conservative party, from 1925 Conservative and Unionists.Charles said:
Do you mean National Liberal?ydoethur said:
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.Charles said:
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'0 -
CO-OP = Come On, Other Parties....Sunil_Prasannan said:
ALDI = Alliance of LibDem Independents?dixiedean said:
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
TESCO = Tory Economic Superiority Confirmed to be Ordinary?
ASDA = Association of Social Democrat Associations?
LIDL = Loony Idiots Democratically Legalised0 -
Hailsham was my mentor when I was a teenager. Just repeating what he told me at the time 😊ydoethur said:
You are completely wrong. The last prominent Liberal Unionist was Neville Chamberlain. He became first a Unionist, then a National MP and died in 1940. The party was formally wound up in 1912 and its assets and members transferred to the new Unionist and Conservative party, from 1925 Conservative and Unionists.Charles said:
Do you mean National Liberal?ydoethur said:
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.Charles said:
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'0 -
And I thought England were pathetic.FrancisUrquhart said:Hope nobody has money on the West Indies to win the T20....
0 -
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.ydoethur said:
(1) As you say, most of them were dead. Most of the rest had changed their views. Oddly the only other Liberal Unionist still active in politics in the 1920s was the standard bearer of the right, Joynson-Hicks. (2) Austen Chamberlain does seem to have considered fashioning a new party with Lloyd George in 1921-22, but he couldn't carry the backbenchers or the wider party members with him (although neither he nor Neville ever used the label 'Conservative' even after it was officially readopted in 1925) (3) why should they do what their father did? My father and I have very different political views and I have no intention of changing that.justin124 said:
I have sometimes wondered why those Liberals who split with Gladstone in 1886 over Ireland - to become Liberal Unionists - did not switch back to the Liberals in the 1920s when the issue had ceased to be divisive. Obviously many - such as Joseph Chamberlain - were dead by that time , but why did the likes of Austen and Nevile not seriously consider returning to their father's Radical roots?ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?0 -
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stopSunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.HYUFD said:
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established orderSunil_Prasannan said:
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism0 -
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.justin124 said:If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.0 -
Well, that was more like the West Indies we know and love so well.0
-
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.ydoethur said:
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.justin124 said:If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.0 -
Many sayings change meaning, or acquire different emphasis, over time, so I don't know what point you think you are making but it certainly is not a devastating one.Dura_Ace said:
They appear to be unaware that the original form of that aphorism as penned by noted Islamophobe Voltaire has the opposite meaning to that which they think.Harris_Tweed said:
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
i.e. Some people will counsel compromise but do not heed them.0 -
You understood wrong. That was the absolute and final break after which he had nothing more whatsoever to do with them, but he described himself in 1922 as being 'without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.'justin124 said:
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.ydoethur said:
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.justin124 said:If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.0 -
You do realise my "socialism = jobs for life = monarchy" is entirely tongue in cheek?HYUFD said:
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stopSunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.HYUFD said:
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established orderSunil_Prasannan said:
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
Don't you??0 -
You forgot the "Without an office"ydoethur said:
You understood wrong. That was the absolute and final break after which he had nothing more whatsoever to do with them, but he described himself in 1922 as being 'without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.'justin124 said:
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.ydoethur said:
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.justin124 said:If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.0 -
Maybe not quite nothing more.ydoethur said:
You understood wrong. That was the absolute and final break after which he had nothing more whatsoever to do with them, but he described himself in 1922 as being 'without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.'justin124 said:
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.ydoethur said:
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.justin124 said:If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
In the 1950s, Churchill sought to bring the Liberals - by then a much reduced party - entirely within a Conservative-dominated anti-socialist alliance. Who knows whether a romantic streak back to his time under Asquith and LG also played a part in his thinking.
The Conservatives stood aside in all five of the seats the Liberals won in England and Wales in 1951. Only in Orkney & Shetland did the Liberals win against Unionist opposition - though the Scottish Unionists were another wing of that alliance rather than a full part of the Conservative Party itself at the time.
However, of course, Clement Davies refused to go down the National Liberal route, which was probably the one significant thing of benefit he did for his party, and they survived and eventually revived as an independent force.0 -
If you say so, off to bed as have a cough, nightSunil_Prasannan said:
You do realise my "socialism = jobs for life = monarchy" is entirely tongue in cheek?HYUFD said:
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stopSunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.HYUFD said:
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established orderSunil_Prasannan said:
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has anduSeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
Don't you??0 -
I see the National Liberals sat as independents in 1931.Charles said:
Hailsham was my mentor when I was a teenager. Just repeating what he told me at the time 😊ydoethur said:
You are completely wrong. The last prominent Liberal Unionist was Neville Chamberlain. He became first a Unionist, then a National MP and died in 1940. The party was formally wound up in 1912 and its assets and members transferred to the new Unionist and Conservative party, from 1925 Conservative and Unionists.Charles said:
Do you mean National Liberal?ydoethur said:
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.Charles said:
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.ydoethur said:
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.Charles said:
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.ydoethur said:
Keep your hair on.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
snip
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'
Sounds a bit familiar?0 -
Get well soon!HYUFD said:
If you say so, off to bed as have a cough, nightSunil_Prasannan said:
You do realise my "socialism = jobs for life = monarchy" is entirely tongue in cheek?HYUFD said:
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stopSunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.HYUFD said:
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established orderSunil_Prasannan said:
Jobs for life = Socialism = MonarchyHYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:
[waving to @HYUFD ]numbertwelve said:
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has anduSeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
Don't you??
Oh and Sleep tight! Don't let the LibDems bite!
0 -
This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/11041540083928883200 -
Given the only point of the royals is to add to the gaiety of the nation by playing out a very public soap opera, Ms Cambridge is to be applauded, a sort of Alexis Colby without the shoulder pads.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)0 -
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
0 -
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.0 -
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.nico67 said:
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .0 -
And to act as a unifying non political figurehead_Anazina_ said:
Given the only point of the royals is to add to the gaiety of the nation by playing out a very public soap opera, Ms Cambridge is to be applauded, a sort of Alexis Colby without the shoulder pads.Charles said:
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.HYUFD said:
She is a shrewd operator no doubtCharles said:
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of CambridgeHYUFD said:
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.SeanT said:
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USPHYUFD said:
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on HarryTheScreamingEagles said:You can tell Prince Harry was raised by that degenerate and hypocrite Prince Charles.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
0 -
People with real wealth know they are lucky as f*ck and try to give backOblitusSumMe said:
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.0 -
Two different problems and I’m not sure both are simultaneously soluble. Who gets to lead the Conservative party? And can they command the confidence of the current House of Commons?david_herdson said:
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.nico67 said:
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .0 -
Dunno though, maybe they take the Tsipras path: Win the election on a platform of never giving in, get into office kick up a big storm about how you're not going to give in, then give in.david_herdson said:
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.nico67 said:
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
You just need someone with the appropriate shrugging skills.0 -
May would let the world burn down for one more day in number 10.nico67 said:
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .0 -
Short 9month extension , TM resigns. Brexiteer (probably boris) wins leadership. Calls GE to get brexit finished . Wins majority , gets mandate for hard brexit. Prepares us for wto “managed “ brexit .0
-
But then through a series of wacky accidents and comical misunderstandings they end up funding pressure groups advocating for lowering their taxes instead.Charles said:
People with real wealth know they are lucky as f*ck and try to give backOblitusSumMe said:
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.0 -
Anyone got a good link for when tasers can be used in the UK by the police?
My google game letting me down.0 -
+1Stereotomy said:
May would let the world burn down for one more day in number 10.nico67 said:
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .0 -
Nah that’s usually hedgies and tossers from the CityStereotomy said:
But then through a series of wacky accidents and comical misunderstandings they end up funding pressure groups advocating for lowering their taxes instead.Charles said:
People with real wealth know they are lucky as f*ck and try to give backOblitusSumMe said:
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.HYUFD said:
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classesSunil_Prasannan said:[waving to @HYUFD ]
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Real wealth got their tax breaks nailed a long time ago
😇0 -
Yes probably, but possible , other alternative brexit gets blocked and we remain , leaving a very unhappy nationCharles said:
I suspect that’s a hopecast not a forecastkjohnw said:Short 9month extension , TM resigns. Brexiteer (probably boris) wins leadership. Calls GE to get brexit finished . Wins majority , gets mandate for hard brexit. Prepares us for wto “managed “ brexit .
0 -
I badly need to point out that any deal has to be countersigned by the European Parliament and they don't sit every day. Iain Dale's idea of a Meaningful Vote 3 two days before departure is too late.williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/11041540083928883200 -
-
The Meaningful Vote could be 3 days before departure; the conclusion of negotiations couldn't be.viewcode said:
I badly need to point out that any deal has to be countersigned by the European Parliament and they don't sit every day. Iain Dale's idea of a Meaningful Vote 3 two days before departure is too late.williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
There's no obligation on the EU to wait for the UK to ratify first.0 -
Yes. As long as Corbyn leads Labour, the DUP will be firmly on the Tories' side, especially if the new leader has had to renounce the NI backstop.AlastairMeeks said:
Two different problems and I’m not sure both are simultaneously soluble. Who gets to lead the Conservative party? And can they command the confidence of the current House of Commons?david_herdson said:
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.nico67 said:
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .williamglenn said:This is relatively plausible. A two year extension and May to quit.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
The problem then (as now) is how do you get any WA through the Commons?0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34516021/when-can-the-police-use-a-taserTheJezziah said:Anyone got a good link for when tasers can be used in the UK by the police?
My google game letting me down.
https://leics.police.uk/advice-and-information/information-zone/taser/what-is-taser0 -
Thanks, did find the first one. Found some other links off the second one but there doesn't seem to be much clarity there, it is all rather vague. Although I suppose that could reflect the fact it is subjective when you can and can't use it to a degree.NickPalmer said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34516021/when-can-the-police-use-a-taserTheJezziah said:Anyone got a good link for when tasers can be used in the UK by the police?
My google game letting me down.
https://leics.police.uk/advice-and-information/information-zone/taser/what-is-taser0 -
That's clearly not her which is quite amusing. He probably used the same agency as Alan Partridge. "Tell them I want a 40 year old smasher. And do use that word: smasher."williamglenn said:0