Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
No, but a horse riding accident in the 1970s or similar would have done it.
The Saxons had it right in choosing the most suitable heir for the job and buying off the rest. It was the bastard from normandy that insisted on the roulette of primogeniture.
Interestingly that isn’t correct. William II Rufus, for example, was the second son of William the Conqueror. Stephen was elected by the barons in default of a male heir to Henry I.
It wasn’t until the reign of Edward III that succession was formalised as male-line primogeniture, and that was as much as anything a response to the French Salic Law designed to freeze him out of succession to the French throne when the House of Capet died out.
Ironically, this supposed settling of the constitutional question was then to cause endless trouble during the Wars of the Roses in both 1460 and 1483. To the extent that Henry VIII, lacking a male heir, actually repealed it and said he had the right to nominate his successor. A power ultimately used by Elizabeth I to nominate James even though the Grey family arguably had a better claim on paper.
Subsequently monarchs were elected in 1688 and in 1714 setting aside the claims of direct primogeniture.
It wasn’t until the Act of Settlement was first used on the latter date that primogeniture became the actual law.
Wasn't there a 'situation' around Wars of the Roses time when there was considerable doubt over whether a son of the Queen had actually been fathered by the King?
And who would have been King in 1688 if James II (IIRC) had become monarch?
And Good Morning one and all. Although OKC is feeling his age somewhat today, having had a 'small' fall yesterday.
I think you’re referring to the claims by York and Warwick that Edward of Westminster (1453-1471) was the son of the Duke of Somerset.
Or you might be referring to the claims that Edward IV wasn’t the son of the Duke of York, as advanced at the time by Clarence and Gloucester in their bids for the throne and by Tony Robinson or Hugh Bicheno in our own time (based on a misunderstanding of the records and the actual order Edward IV was born in).
Neither is impossible, but they are not very likely either. Claims like that are frequently made about heirs who are inconvenient to powerful nobles (cf the birth of a son to James VII and II’s queen in 1688).
Ironically, one reason York had to claim the crown through the female line - which Edward III had ruled out, although Richard II had in fact nominated the senior representative of that line, the Earl of March, as his heir in 1398 - was that everyone knew perfectly well his father (the Earl of Cambridge) was not the son of the Duke of York. The Duke and Duchess hadn’t even spoken for 11 years at the time of his birth!
Thank God schools don’t bother with royal history now. I can think of almost nothing more tedious.
It's slightly useful to give you a hook onto which you can hang the interesting history. For instance, the history of the church pivots on Henry VIII and the reason Alfred burned the cakes, if that even happened, was because he was on the run from the Danes. So it all links in. That said, you're right. It's dull as fuck just on its own.
Move over history, it's herstory now.
As in, herstory is nearly finished? Move over, Babs. It's time for Charles the Thick.
Charles is not thick, in fact he will probably be our brightest monarch since Edward VIIth and our first Oxbridge graduate on the throne since his great great grandfather too who also had a reasonable but short reign overshadowed by that of his mother and son
So you're saying the queen is thick? To the tower with you, young man. To the tower.
Not thick, just not an intellectual like Charles
Charles really isn’t that bright. He’s moderately intelligent, well read but few original thoughts. So much like the average person.
The top royals have access to the more interesting people in society. But they don’t all make best use of it. See Harry. Charlie however proved himself decades ahead of the curve on the environment, the biggest global problem of the early 21st Century, and arguably too on housing policy.
I don’t care much for the royal family as an institution but I’m quite looking forward to seeing what Charles will make of the role. Far more so than his nice but dim son.
Yes, he may well be quite a good King.
Not that we get any say in the matter. Its a close call that we are not having Prince Andrew as King.
Would take a hell of an accident to get Andrew back to number one in the line of succession.
Sooner or later we will get a really unpopular monarch, like Andrew. How many here would remain monarchists and grit their teeth for 20-30 years of King Andrew of equivalent? The system requires you to take the rough with the smooth.
They forced Edward to abdicate. The system we have is that Parliament chooses the Monarch if it has to because the present incumbent is sufficiently intolerable.
We pretend most of the time that this isn't the case, but if you had a really bad Monarch it is what has happened in the past, and it has been the sufficient degree of flexibility that has avoided a Republic.
So do you expect Charles to abdicate?
Or are we bound to a sequence of pensioner Kings who only ascend to the throne in their seventies or beyond too infirm to credibly do much for the country on the global stage as Her Majesty was able to do when she was younger?
If Charles interferes in politics sufficiently in the way that some Republicans hope will aid their cause I would expect him to be forced to abdicate to avoid that outcome.
If he knuckles down and plays along then we'd be set for a succession of elderly monarchs, which I don't think is necessarily a problem in itself. There will always be a youngest generation to play its part.
I’m actually relatively sanguine about having a monarchy, I find the contortions monarchists have to adopt to defend the system so amusing it would be a shame to lose it.
I'd like us to get rid of the monarchy but quite frankly there's far many more serious issues to worry about that I'm content not rock the boat on that.
If Charles causes issues then we can readdress that then. Otherwise I'd far rather issues like housing, taxes etc get tackled.
Surely a plan to remove the monarchy would only occur if a big distraction from other issues was required.
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
You are not stupid, so don’t act stupid. “Thanks for confirming.” How old are you?
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up. 2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect 3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative. 4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories 5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!” Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
Morning all. Warm today and an awesome red sky in the South East.
Snow in a couple of weeks according to the papers. Not the Met Office site though.
At least the milder weather should reduce the demand for gas although it didn't stop my wife having the heating on all day yesterday while working from home.
Just remember the general rule of thumb: the more ecstatic the reception a budget gets - and Sunak's is going to be greeted with a level of joy on here and elsewhere that will be quite something to behold - the more likely it is to be an absolute dud.
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
You are not stupid, so don’t act stupid. “Thanks for confirming.” How old are you?
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up. 2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect 3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative. 4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories 5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!” Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
Just remember the general rule of thumb: the more ecstatic the reception a budget gets - and Sunak's is going to be greeted with a level of joy on here and elsewhere that will be quite something to behold - the more likely it is to be an absolute dud.
The panegyrics have started before he has delivered what's left of it to the Commons.
Just remember the general rule of thumb: the more ecstatic the reception a budget gets - and Sunak's is going to be greeted with a level of joy on here and elsewhere that will be quite something to behold - the more likely it is to be an absolute dud.
Leaving aside the question of propriety for the moment, I do not understand why they leak the good stuff rather than the bad stuff.
Get that out of the way. Test the reaction. If it's too negative, make changes in advance.
Then, all the nice stuff guarantees you lots of good headlines and goodwill going forward.
The way they're doing it, they get so many bad headlines in the aftermath they invariably have to u-turn, which makes them look ridiculous. As they probably will have to again on the one piece of bad news that has been widely trailed in advance - the cancellation of HS2's eastern leg.*
Whoever the Treasury advisers are, they are clearly very stupid. No wonder the country's in such a mess if utter retards like this are considered the cream of the civil service.
*The government has pledged to increase capacity in other ways that will be either (a) impossible or (b) twice as expensive without building HS2. So they will have to u-turn on one of them.
Just remember the general rule of thumb: the more ecstatic the reception a budget gets - and Sunak's is going to be greeted with a level of joy on here and elsewhere that will be quite something to behold - the more likely it is to be an absolute dud.
Yes, the devil is always in the detail. It takes a few days to come out.
Quite a day for Starmer. Let's see if he can spot the flaws in time for his response.
Could have paid off 1/4 of outstanding student loans instead!
Or for about half of that given every student a laptop and hired 400,000 teachers currently in other jobs to provide top-quality remote learning throughout the pandemic.
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
You are not stupid, so don’t act stupid. “Thanks for confirming.” How old are you?
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up. 2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect 3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative. 4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories 5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!” Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
HYUFD deduces stuff from a headline fact and assumes what he has deduced is still a fact. He has no comprehension that his deduction may be flawed.
I routinely go around this loop. Even after showing his deductions are flawed he challenges me to show examples using his method that would equally be flawed. Then assumes he is right because I refuse to use his flawed deduction method.
If you use an example that shows the irrationality of his method you will be told that is hypothetical.
He doesn't understand this stuff.
He will not understand your explanation of why his method is irrational.
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
You are not stupid, so don’t act stupid. “Thanks for confirming.” How old are you?
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up. 2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect 3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative. 4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories 5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!” Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
And he invariably does...
I'm always a little surprised that commentators look at, and compare, age groups. I was a student, and radical in 1959, the first time I voted. By 1964 I was a 'family man' running a small pharmacy, so my interests were different. They were similar, of course in 1966, but they'd changed again by 1970 and in 1974 I was fed up with Heath and the Tories. And so on.
And the student loan issue still makes me wary of my former party, one which I campaigned for up until 1997.
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
You are not stupid, so don’t act stupid. “Thanks for confirming.” How old are you?
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up. 2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect 3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative. 4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories 5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!” Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
HYUFD deduces stuff from a headline fact and assumes what he has deduced is still a fact. He has no comprehension that his deduction may be flawed.
I routinely go around this loop. Even after showing his deductions are flawed he challenges me to show examples using his method that would equally be flawed. Then assumes he is right because I refuse to use his flawed deduction method.
If you use an example that shows the irrationality of his method you will be told that is hypothetical.
He doesn't understand this stuff.
He will not understand your explanation of why his method is irrational.
You really are the most pompous, tedious bore sometimes
(18-24 age share of vote for Lib Dem or predecessor parties since 1974. Nope, no significant change in the last three elections. Can’t see anything there)
So Labour won 18-24s in every general election then except 2010 effectively when the LDs won them and then promptly lost them again in 2015 post fees rise, thanks for confirming
You are not stupid, so don’t act stupid. “Thanks for confirming.” How old are you?
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up. 2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect 3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative. 4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories 5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!” Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
HYUFD deduces stuff from a headline fact and assumes what he has deduced is still a fact. He has no comprehension that his deduction may be flawed.
I routinely go around this loop. Even after showing his deductions are flawed he challenges me to show examples using his method that would equally be flawed. Then assumes he is right because I refuse to use his flawed deduction method.
If you use an example that shows the irrationality of his method you will be told that is hypothetical.
He doesn't understand this stuff.
He will not understand your explanation of why his method is irrational.
You really are the most pompous, tedious bore sometimes
That has got to be the greatest self awareness fail ever. Even worse than Topping accusing somebody else of being selfish or rude.
Comments
Or you might be referring to the claims that Edward IV wasn’t the son of the Duke of York, as advanced at the time by Clarence and Gloucester in their bids for the throne and by Tony Robinson or Hugh Bicheno in our own time (based on a misunderstanding of the records and the actual order Edward IV was born in).
Neither is impossible, but they are not very likely either. Claims like that are frequently made about heirs who are inconvenient to powerful nobles (cf the birth of a son to James VII and II’s queen in 1688).
Ironically, one reason York had to claim the crown through the female line - which Edward III had ruled out, although Richard II had in fact nominated the senior representative of that line, the Earl of March, as his heir in 1398 - was that everyone knew perfectly well his father (the Earl of Cambridge) was not the son of the Duke of York. The Duke and Duchess hadn’t even spoken for 11 years at the time of his birth!
See for example statues and other wars on woke
1 - You do not “win” an entire age category by FPTP. Each point adds up.
2 - There is a difference between a cohort effect and an age effect. The student loan issue is a cohort effect
3 - In every election, a significant number of 18-24 and 25-34 voted Conservative.
4 - Losing a significant chunk of your 20-30%+ votes in this category will hurt the Tories
5 - Especially if they then lose a chunk of the 40-60 category who are pissed off with what the Tories are doing to their children.
You can contort and twist as much as you like. “Look, the Lib Dems didn’t win most students in most elections, so losing three quarters of them didn’t hurt them!”
Have you seen the number of Lib Dem MPs in comparison to before? The student loan issue is still brought up on the doorstep; funnily enough, it’s not mitigate by the fact that they only won 20-30% of them in the past. No matter what you seem to be desperate to believe.
At least the milder weather should reduce the demand for gas although it didn't stop my wife having the heating on all day yesterday while working from home.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10134457/NHSs-world-beating-37BILLION-Test-Trace-program-eyewatering-waste-taxpayer-cash.html
One for Rishi.
Get that out of the way. Test the reaction. If it's too negative, make changes in advance.
Then, all the nice stuff guarantees you lots of good headlines and goodwill going forward.
The way they're doing it, they get so many bad headlines in the aftermath they invariably have to u-turn, which makes them look ridiculous. As they probably will have to again on the one piece of bad news that has been widely trailed in advance - the cancellation of HS2's eastern leg.*
Whoever the Treasury advisers are, they are clearly very stupid. No wonder the country's in such a mess if utter retards like this are considered the cream of the civil service.
*The government has pledged to increase capacity in other ways that will be either (a) impossible or (b) twice as expensive without building HS2. So they will have to u-turn on one of them.
Quite a day for Starmer. Let's see if he can spot the flaws in time for his response.
been leaked to the media and therefore Hoyle won't call it
I routinely go around this loop. Even after showing his deductions are flawed he challenges me to show examples using his method that would equally be flawed. Then assumes he is right because I refuse to use his flawed deduction method.
If you use an example that shows the irrationality of his method you will be told that is hypothetical.
He doesn't understand this stuff.
He will not understand your explanation of why his method is irrational.
And the student loan issue still makes me wary of my former party, one which I campaigned for up until 1997.