Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sleazy does it – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are there any markets on Charles' regnal name?

    George VII sounds better than Charles III.....

    And although he's not limited to his given names there's a Philip and an Arthur in there too...

    Monarchs in this country won't be able to get away with that anymore. As has been noted on here before he'd be a laughing stock if he tried to get us to call him something else after 70+years of being Charles. Lay everything else.
    William might pick a different name when he gets the gig though - if the British state survives that long intact.

    If he sticks with his own name he'll be known as King William V, but he'll only be the fourth William to be king in Scotland. Cue a tremendous amount of aggrieved wailing.
    He might also wish to avoid King Billy in Northern Ireland.
    Though if it's just the Antrim staunch enclave by then, may as well keep it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,478

    Leon said:

    The closest comparison to the Queen Dying - in other countries - was the death of King Bumibhol in Thailand in 2016, after a 66 year long reign

    He was revered, even adored. Also respected. He saw the country through near civil war and coups aplenty, and was always dignified in a quiet, shy way. Flawless in execution of the job. The similarities with QE2 are quite striking.

    Thais wore black for about a year. Of course we won't do that but there will be real grief.

    Luckily for us we have the dutiful if slightly dreary Charles to take over. He will do OK. The Thais got their version of Prince Andrew. Actually even worse than Andrew

    "Thailand threatens to prosecute Facebook for running a video of the country's heavily tattooed king walking through a shopping mall in a tiny yellow crop-top"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imm9adAf5g0&t=7s

    'a video of the country's heavily tattooed king walking through a shopping mall in a tiny yellow crop-top'

    Dunno, grief can do funny things to folk.
    Tattoos or Thai dyes?
  • TimT said:

    For those looking to bet on the US mid-terms, there is a very good analytical piece on politico.com at the moment:

    "Largely overlooked amid the party’s dismal suburban results in Virginia and New Jersey last week, Republicans regained ground in the vote-rich Philly suburbs after years of losses under Trump. The GOP flipped multiple row offices in populous Bucks County, carried a state Supreme Court race there, and even came close to winning seats on the county council in Delaware County, where Biden romped by nearly 30 points in 2020.

    ...

    "From April to October, Biden’s approval rating fell 14 points among suburban voters in Pennsylvania, according to surveys by Morning Consult. Biden’s favorability saw similar drops in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida.

    "Biden’s suburban fade is no small matter. The big margins produced by the suburban Philadelphia counties of Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware, and Chester — where Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton — allowed him to win the state back from Trump in 2020.

    "The most recent election results, however, suggested the GOP is on much favorable footing in these areas now that Trump is out of office. From Loudoun County, Va., to Bucks County, Pa., suburban voters appeared to reject the idea that every Republican candidate is a Trump foot soldier. Just as Virginia Democrats sought to paint Youngkin as a Trump acolyte, Pennsylvania Democrats sought to tie local Republican candidates to the former GOP president — and there were few signs that it worked." [my bold]

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/14/gop-trump-pennsylvania-suburbs-521655

    Interesting because the corollary is that the GOP recovery was not about "woke" so much as non-Trump Republicans coming home, especially in the absence of any positive message from the Democrats.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    edited November 2021

    SandraMc said:

    SandraMc said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the Monster of Balmoral attending the Cenotaph to commemorate the sacrifice of thousands of teenagers?

    Prince Charles, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Wessex just laid wreaths, no Prince Andrew
    Presumably limited to working Royals.
    I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
    Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
    Wasn't he a helicopter pilot in the Navy? He joined the Navy in 1979 and trained at Dartmouth.
    Of course, yes. Also read he became Captain of a warship. HMS Cottesmore.
    FPT

    But not much of a warship. A Hunt MCM, basically a plastic successor of the wooden Ton minesweeper of which his elder brother also commanded one. Same Deltic diesel engine. Almost as small as you can get and still be called captain. (And I believe that that is purely honorific - the rank of the CO of such ships isn't really Captain RN. But DA might know better.)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    Sean_F said:

    O/T but I see ABC/Washington Post have Bidenon 38%, and the Republicans 10% ahead on the generic vote. If that were repeated in 2022, they'd have a majority of about 100 in the House, and 54/55 Senate seats.

    "Why Grand Old Party, what a big House majority you've got!"
    "All the better for stealing the election with!"
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    I think the changing of that song will probably be the strangest part of the succession; it'd be like the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody being changed overnight.
    Philatelists would disagree probably.
    Coins might the the other strange one.

    When people my age were little, you still had old shillings and two shillingses in circulation, as some strange connection to the past. Coins had a monarch on them, but not necessarily our current one.

    But for about twenty thirty years, all our coins have had Elizabeth II on them. It will be odd when that changes.

    (Edit to correct my dodgy maths. How embarrassing.)
    Yes I remember occasionally getting George VI shillings and florins (and quite a few pre-decimal Elizabeth II) in one’s change up until the early 90s when they changed the size of the five and ten pence coins. They were almost always dated 1948 or later as before that year they still had some silver in them and those coins were withdrawn from circulation to salvage the silver. I did once find a 1937 shilling in my change though. I still have it somewhere.

    The monarch’s head on the coins is supposed to change direction each reign, but not on stamps I think (or is it on stamps but not coins?). Anything with the royal cipher (“EIIR”) will need to be updated: the most visible will be police cap badges as most forces use the cipher, and theoretically Royal Mail vans and new pillar boxes. Although as they’re now privatized, maybe they’ll take the opportunity to drop the crown and cipher altogether.

    Which brings us on to the crown itself, as displayed in badges, including military and police ranks, and insignia: historically in the 19th through 21st centuries, the current crown with the curved arches based on the St Edmund’s Crown has been used by female monarchs (Victoria and Elizabeth) but male monarchs have used one with flatter arches based on the Tudor Crown. Whether Charles III/George VII/whatever will decide to follow this custom (which is relatively new) will remain to be seen.

    And it’s not just the UK that would be affected by a change in crown: obviously the other Commonwealth Realms would also need to change (Barbados will at least avoid the expense of changing stuff as they’re about to become a republic, I wonder who will actually be their last monarch?). Fiji has been officially a republic since 1987 but this is in many respects in name only as they have retained the Queen as paramount chief of their traditional hierarchy and still use the crown in their military badges and rank insignia.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,759
    NZ have lost this already
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    Leon said:

    OK, on to betting, which major politicians will be seen crying, at some point, during the announcements, the mourning, the funeral?

    My bet

    Boris
    All of the Ulster Unionists
    Starmer will try and fake it
    Ruth Davidson
    Priti Patel
    Someone from Plaid Cymru, to their own surprise


    Onions and kitchen knives will be useful.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Again IIRC, EVERYTHING, apart from work shut down. Radio was beyond tedious! We didn’t have a TV, but I think that shut down, too.pretty sure cinemas were closed.
    They need to keep the taverns open. So we can suffocate a few choirboys*

    I've just realised that we are going to get horrible videos of Republicans and Irish loons and Britophobes doing celebrations

    We must prepare to drone them

    *old French expression for boozing. I may have got it wrong
    The Guardian report on the Queen's absence from the Cenotaph wreath-laying states that the crowd joined in with God Save the Queen with gusto, which even a bitter old cynical republican like myself finds quite moving.
  • England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,759

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Again IIRC, EVERYTHING, apart from work shut down. Radio was beyond tedious! We didn’t have a TV, but I think that shut down, too.pretty sure cinemas were closed.
    They need to keep the taverns open. So we can suffocate a few choirboys*

    I've just realised that we are going to get horrible videos of Republicans and Irish loons and Britophobes doing celebrations

    We must prepare to drone them

    *old French expression for boozing. I may have got it wrong
    The Guardian report on the Queen's absence from the Cenotaph wreath-laying states that the crowd joined in with God Save the Queen with gusto, which even a bitter old cynical republican like myself finds quite moving.
    See here. Yes, it is sung with real verve. And yes, it is moving

    "The #RemembranceSunday service at the Cenotaph comes to an end with a very loud and heartfelt rendition of ‘God Save The Queen’.

    Her Majesty will no doubt be watching on from Windsor Castle."

    https://twitter.com/RoyalCentral/status/1459845677987643395?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    The closest comparison to the Queen Dying - in other countries - was the death of King Bumibhol in Thailand in 2016, after a 66 year long reign

    He was revered, even adored. Also respected. He saw the country through near civil war and coups aplenty, and was always dignified in a quiet, shy way. Flawless in execution of the job. The similarities with QE2 are quite striking.

    Thais wore black for about a year. Of course we won't do that but there will be real grief.

    Luckily for us we have the dutiful if slightly dreary Charles to take over. He will do OK. The Thais got their version of Prince Andrew. Actually even worse than Andrew

    "Thailand threatens to prosecute Facebook for running a video of the country's heavily tattooed king walking through a shopping mall in a tiny yellow crop-top"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imm9adAf5g0&t=7s

    70 years. I've suggested before the Queen loves a good record I bet, she'll want to make it to 27 May 2024 to beat Louis XIV.
    Reckon that HM's real personal longevity benchmark, is fact that her mother lived to be 101.

    If she makes it that far - God willing - then methinks she will think she's really achieved something, that she - and her mum - can be proud of.
    Living longer than Nicholas Witchell would be a considerable public service in its own right.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I'm to believe no other nation on earth thinks it is less corrupt than it is? Bullshit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,478
    kle4 said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are there any markets on Charles' regnal name?

    George VII sounds better than Charles III.....

    And although he's not limited to his given names there's a Philip and an Arthur in there too...

    Monarchs in this country won't be able to get away with that anymore. As has been noted on here before he'd be a laughing stock if he tried to get us to call him something else after 70+years of being Charles. Lay everything else.
    William might pick a different name when he gets the gig though - if the British state survives that long intact.

    If he sticks with his own name he'll be known as King William V, but he'll only be the fourth William to be king in Scotland. Cue a tremendous amount of aggrieved wailing.
    But we've already had Elizabeth II and they've not had the first. He could have resolved this by calling his eldest son David, then he would have reigned as David III of the UK, without England having had one.
    Too Welsh
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 39,061
    edited November 2021
    TSE grammar check:

    what did shock me was the fact just how OUT OF touch of the Prime Minister IS


    You're welcome :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.
  • SLEAZY
    (with apologies to Miss Patsy Cline)

    Sleazy
    We;re sleazy and feeling so guilty
    We're sleazy
    For being so very Blue

    We knew
    You'd lead me as long as we let you
    Until one day
    We tell you to find someone new to screw
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are there any markets on Charles' regnal name?

    George VII sounds better than Charles III.....

    And although he's not limited to his given names there's a Philip and an Arthur in there too...

    Monarchs in this country won't be able to get away with that anymore. As has been noted on here before he'd be a laughing stock if he tried to get us to call him something else after 70+years of being Charles. Lay everything else.
    William might pick a different name when he gets the gig though - if the British state survives that long intact.

    If he sticks with his own name he'll be known as King William V, but he'll only be the fourth William to be king in Scotland. Cue a tremendous amount of aggrieved wailing.
    But we've already had Elizabeth II and they've not had the first. He could have resolved this by calling his eldest son David, then he would have reigned as David III of the UK, without England having had one.
    Too Welsh
    Constantine III it is.
  • kle4 said:

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I'm to believe no other nation on earth thinks it is less corrupt than it is? Bullshit.
    Did I say that? No, you did.
  • ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Leon said:

    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    They won't be.

    Not a single one of them knows the right words
  • 36,517 and 63 deaths
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited November 2021

    kle4 said:

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I'm to believe no other nation on earth thinks it is less corrupt than it is? Bullshit.
    Did I say that? No, you did.
    Well I apologise if I misinterpreted. I thought so because you said the 'difference' with others was England thinking it was unnatural and thus looking deluded or like hypocrites.

    If others also think they are less corrupt than they are then I'm somewhat confused as to what the difference is supposed to be. I certainly don't think all places think that corruption is the natural state of affairs. Many will, accurately, but all or even most? I find that very hard to believe, particularly in places which are not very corrupt on a global scale.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822

    36,517 and 63 deaths

    Sunday... What kind on biscuits should we serve at the weekly panic on Tuesday? And who is in charge of folding all the chairs, this time?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,295
    edited November 2021
    Sean_F said:

    It's strange how governments make these unforced errors. It ought to have been blindingly obvious that trying to overturn the procedures on behalf of Owen Paterson would turn out far worse (even for Paterson) than his just taking his punishment.

    The story I have heard from a couple of people is that few in the Tory Party really did dig deep into the story/report because they believed Paterson that the process contributed to the death of his wife.

    I think a smidgen of sympathy contributed to this but it was clear to anyone who had read the report that Paterson had behaved terribly and a 30 day suspension was on the light side.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I am reading a superb book at the moment that I got for my birthday called Diary of a DA by Herbert Stein. He was a famous DA who managed to bring down much of the Mob in New York and New Jersey in the 60s and 70s. He explains that in New York the Mafia owned the politicians who did what they were told but in NJ the politicians owned the mob who got a cut of the largesse that was taken off every public contract.

    The level of corruption in both states was beyond anything we have seen in this country for several centuries. It was backed by violence, union muscle and a totally corrupt institutional structure which included most of the Judges. For all our peccadillos and flaws we really don't appreciate how lucky we are.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,567
    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
  • Blimey.

    One person has died and another is in hospital after a car explosion outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital.

    Police understand the car was a taxi that had pulled up shortly before the explosion. Counter-terror police are leading the investigation.


    https://twitter.com/hannahITV/status/1459914749706125316
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,428
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music

    Meghan can't skip this one. Awks
    Have a read of this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
    That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline


    This is an insightful passage

    "In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."

    Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
    A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
    I can't recall having done so.
    Me neither. I've dreamed about public figures - eg both Bill and Hillary Clinton - but never our Liz. Or if I have I've forgotten it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
    75billion-1.

    Roughly the same odds as Southee taking a wicket here.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Counter terror detectives are leading an investigation into the "car explosion" at the Women's Hospital in Liverpool this morning, Merseyside Police announce.

    One person has died.

    Another person has been taken to hospital with injuries that police say are not life threatening

    The Merseyside Police statement says: "so far we understand that the car involved was a taxi which pulled up at the hospital shortly before the explosion occurred."

    The force says it "could take some time" to publicly confirm what happened

    Merseyside Police says "we are keeping an open mind as to what caused the explosion but given how it has happened, out of caution, Counter Terrorism Police are leading the investigation"


    https://twitter.com/DdesimoneDaniel/status/1459916832089985031
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    Blimey.

    One person has died and another is in hospital after a car explosion outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital.

    Police understand the car was a taxi that had pulled up shortly before the explosion. Counter-terror police are leading the investigation.


    https://twitter.com/hannahITV/status/1459914749706125316

    That sounds pretty bad.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    36,517 and 63 deaths

    LOL, number of patients in ventilation beds? 999.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    Carnyx said:

    SandraMc said:

    SandraMc said:

    MattW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the Monster of Balmoral attending the Cenotaph to commemorate the sacrifice of thousands of teenagers?

    Prince Charles, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Wessex just laid wreaths, no Prince Andrew
    Presumably limited to working Royals.
    I noticed at the Remembrance Service last night at the Royal Albert Hall, when the various armed services marched in, for the Royal Navy they played: "All the Nice Girls Love a Sailor." It made me wish Prince Andrew had been in the Royal Box to see his reaction.
    Andrew was a pilot, not a sailor?
    Wasn't he a helicopter pilot in the Navy? He joined the Navy in 1979 and trained at Dartmouth.
    Of course, yes. Also read he became Captain of a warship. HMS Cottesmore.
    FPT

    But not much of a warship. A Hunt MCM, basically a plastic successor of the wooden Ton minesweeper of which his elder brother also commanded one. Same Deltic diesel engine. Almost as small as you can get and still be called captain. (And I believe that that is purely honorific - the rank of the CO of such ships isn't really Captain RN. But DA might know better.)
    I think these days you have to get up the aircraft carriers to find an RN ship captained by someone with the actual rank of Captain. But then, a naval captain is equivalent in rank to an army colonel, and so is three full ranks senior to an army captain.
  • Sleazy like Sunday afternoon :lol:
  • Mr. Doethur, if he'd really been king, he would've reigned solo after Mary died, as per William of Orange.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,759

    TimT said:

    For those looking to bet on the US mid-terms, there is a very good analytical piece on politico.com at the moment:

    "Largely overlooked amid the party’s dismal suburban results in Virginia and New Jersey last week, Republicans regained ground in the vote-rich Philly suburbs after years of losses under Trump. The GOP flipped multiple row offices in populous Bucks County, carried a state Supreme Court race there, and even came close to winning seats on the county council in Delaware County, where Biden romped by nearly 30 points in 2020.

    ...

    "From April to October, Biden’s approval rating fell 14 points among suburban voters in Pennsylvania, according to surveys by Morning Consult. Biden’s favorability saw similar drops in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida.

    "Biden’s suburban fade is no small matter. The big margins produced by the suburban Philadelphia counties of Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware, and Chester — where Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton — allowed him to win the state back from Trump in 2020.

    "The most recent election results, however, suggested the GOP is on much favorable footing in these areas now that Trump is out of office. From Loudoun County, Va., to Bucks County, Pa., suburban voters appeared to reject the idea that every Republican candidate is a Trump foot soldier. Just as Virginia Democrats sought to paint Youngkin as a Trump acolyte, Pennsylvania Democrats sought to tie local Republican candidates to the former GOP president — and there were few signs that it worked." [my bold]

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/14/gop-trump-pennsylvania-suburbs-521655

    Interesting because the corollary is that the GOP recovery was not about "woke" so much as non-Trump Republicans coming home, especially in the absence of any positive message from the Democrats.
    ‘Washington Post-ABC News poll: Biden hits a new approval rating low, Republicans enjoy largest midterm lead in the poll's 40-year history’

    If the GOP can dodge the Trump bullet, they will romp home in 22 and 24

    https://twitter.com/axios/status/1459913295784300551?s=21
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Can't make things any worse I suppose?

    The son of Libya's late leader Muammar al-Gaddafi has registered as a candidate in the country's first direct presidential election next month.

    Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was once the heir apparent to his father, but his support for a brutal crackdown on protesters 10 years ago tarnished his image.

    Since that 2011 uprising, Libya has been riven by conflict.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59280215
  • DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079

    Sean_F said:

    It's strange how governments make these unforced errors. It ought to have been blindingly obvious that trying to overturn the procedures on behalf of Owen Paterson would turn out far worse (even for Paterson) than his just taking his punishment.

    The story I have heard from a couple of people is that few in the Tory Party really did dig deep into the story/report because they believed Paterson that the process contributed to the death of his wife.

    I think a smidgen of sympathy contributed to this but it was clear to anyone who had read the report that Paterson had behaved terribly and a 30 day suspension was on the light side.
    Making it even more ludicrously shady to announce a 3-line-whip with less than 24 hours notice.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Again IIRC, EVERYTHING, apart from work shut down. Radio was beyond tedious! We didn’t have a TV, but I think that shut down, too.pretty sure cinemas were closed.
    They need to keep the taverns open. So we can suffocate a few choirboys*

    I've just realised that we are going to get horrible videos of Republicans and Irish loons and Britophobes doing celebrations

    We must prepare to drone them

    *old French expression for boozing. I may have got it wrong
    The Guardian report on the Queen's absence from the Cenotaph wreath-laying states that the crowd joined in with God Save the Queen with gusto, which even a bitter old cynical republican like myself finds quite moving.
    Proof that GSTQ is about Her Majesty only, and NOT the nation.

    Or else it would be summat like "God Save the UK", no?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
    75billion-1.

    Roughly the same odds as Southee taking a wicket here.
    Surely Australia have won because they got to bat second? It meant the better team lost in each of the semis.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,759
    Scott_xP said:

    Counter terror detectives are leading an investigation into the "car explosion" at the Women's Hospital in Liverpool this morning, Merseyside Police announce.

    One person has died.

    Another person has been taken to hospital with injuries that police say are not life threatening

    The Merseyside Police statement says: "so far we understand that the car involved was a taxi which pulled up at the hospital shortly before the explosion occurred."

    The force says it "could take some time" to publicly confirm what happened

    Merseyside Police says "we are keeping an open mind as to what caused the explosion but given how it has happened, out of caution, Counter Terrorism Police are leading the investigation"


    https://twitter.com/DdesimoneDaniel/status/1459916832089985031

    Jeepers. But why would terrorists of any stripe attack a ‘woman’s hospital’?

    Unless a specific person was targeted?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
    Meghan would be better.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,236
    edited November 2021
    DavidL said:

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I am reading a superb book at the moment that I got for my birthday called Diary of a DA by Herbert Stein. He was a famous DA who managed to bring down much of the Mob in New York and New Jersey in the 60s and 70s. He explains that in New York the Mafia owned the politicians who did what they were told but in NJ the politicians owned the mob who got a cut of the largesse that was taken off every public contract.

    The level of corruption in both states was beyond anything we have seen in this country for several centuries. It was backed by violence, union muscle and a totally corrupt institutional structure which included most of the Judges. For all our peccadillos and flaws we really don't appreciate how lucky we are.
    The Mafia is very good at industry-wide extortion, and it's extremely difficult to root out, because the victims of this extortion are also the beneficiaries of it; it's the consumers ultimately who lose out, through having to pay higher prices than if there was proper competition.

    So, for example, every businessman in the district who wants his garbage collected has to use a company whose owners have to pay a percentage to the local equivalent of Tony Soprano, whose family members get a load of no-show jobs in the same company, or the union that operates a closed shop over who can drive trucks in the locality. Turn to a competitor, and you might just get your shop or office burned down, or the competitor will get its trucks sabotaged. So, it's easier just to pass the costs on to the consumers, who can't go anywhere else.

    Public construction contracts likewise offer a great opportunity for everyone involved to be getting a percentage, with taxpayers ultimately footing the bill.
  • DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
    75billion-1.

    Roughly the same odds as Southee taking a wicket here.
    Surely Australia have won because they got to bat second? It meant the better team lost in each of the semis.
    Eoin Morgan should be sacked for failing to ensure England got bowled out of for 110 in Saffer match, thus knocking out the Aussies.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    Mr. Doethur, if he'd really been king, he would've reigned solo after Mary died, as per William of Orange.

    That's not quite clear cut, for two reasons (1) William was declared joint King in right of his mother rather than his wife and (2) there was a suggestion Philip should indeed continue reigning after Mary's death even though he had never been formally crowned.

    Philip, to his eternal credit and also in recognition that England was peripheral to his main interests in Europe, instead oversaw the transfer of power to Elizabeth. Much of their later antipathy (see - Armadas) was because he felt she should have been grateful to him for this and not (say) supported the Dutch rebellions.
  • This really is shaping up to be a shitty sporting Sunday.

    Aussies become world champions and the Dutch shunt wins the GP/finishes ahead of our brave Sir Lewis today.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
    Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
  • Sean_F said:

    It's strange how governments make these unforced errors. It ought to have been blindingly obvious that trying to overturn the procedures on behalf of Owen Paterson would turn out far worse (even for Paterson) than his just taking his punishment.

    The story I have heard from a couple of people is that few in the Tory Party really did dig deep into the story/report because they believed Paterson that the process contributed to the death of his wife.

    I think a smidgen of sympathy contributed to this but it was clear to anyone who had read the report that Paterson had behaved terribly and a 30 day suspension was on the light side.
    But it was the job of Mogg and Spencer to know the details.

    So they're guilty of some combination of:

    1) Not understanding what Paterson had done
    2) Being tolerant of what Paterson had done
    3) Not understanding what the reaction would be
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Again IIRC, EVERYTHING, apart from work shut down. Radio was beyond tedious! We didn’t have a TV, but I think that shut down, too.pretty sure cinemas were closed.
    They need to keep the taverns open. So we can suffocate a few choirboys*

    I've just realised that we are going to get horrible videos of Republicans and Irish loons and Britophobes doing celebrations

    We must prepare to drone them

    *old French expression for boozing. I may have got it wrong
    The Guardian report on the Queen's absence from the Cenotaph wreath-laying states that the crowd joined in with God Save the Queen with gusto, which even a bitter old cynical republican like myself finds quite moving.
    Proof that GSTQ is about Her Majesty only, and NOT the nation.

    Or else it would be summat like "God Save the UK", no?
    You are thinking of God defend New Zealand. :smile:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    Got my phone set up with the cricket. Not sure I want to see too much of that from Mitch Marsh tbh :s
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Counter terror detectives are leading an investigation into the "car explosion" at the Women's Hospital in Liverpool this morning, Merseyside Police announce.

    One person has died.

    Another person has been taken to hospital with injuries that police say are not life threatening

    The Merseyside Police statement says: "so far we understand that the car involved was a taxi which pulled up at the hospital shortly before the explosion occurred."

    The force says it "could take some time" to publicly confirm what happened

    Merseyside Police says "we are keeping an open mind as to what caused the explosion but given how it has happened, out of caution, Counter Terrorism Police are leading the investigation"


    https://twitter.com/DdesimoneDaniel/status/1459916832089985031

    Jeepers. But why would terrorists of any stripe attack a ‘woman’s hospital’?

    Unless a specific person was targeted?
    Dunno. But there have been disturbing amounts of protests and filming of hospitals in recent months.
    Cos of you know what.
  • ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,803
    By-election news:

    Vote Labour, Get Wood

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-59281956
  • DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    What the government needs is someone willing to say no.

    No, you cannot get paid for being a middle man in some PPE contract.
    No, you cannot vote while in the Virgin Isles.
    No, you cannot spend that much on wallpaper.
    No, you cannot have a private flight.
    No, you cannot have a free holiday.
    No, you cannot vote to get your mates off.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    edited November 2021

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
    Edward V was king for only eleven weeks before his uncle usurped the throne and had him murdered, but he still counts.

    Edit - although this discussion does show why Philip would not be a suitable regnal name.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,189
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Counter terror detectives are leading an investigation into the "car explosion" at the Women's Hospital in Liverpool this morning, Merseyside Police announce.

    One person has died.

    Another person has been taken to hospital with injuries that police say are not life threatening

    The Merseyside Police statement says: "so far we understand that the car involved was a taxi which pulled up at the hospital shortly before the explosion occurred."

    The force says it "could take some time" to publicly confirm what happened

    Merseyside Police says "we are keeping an open mind as to what caused the explosion but given how it has happened, out of caution, Counter Terrorism Police are leading the investigation"


    https://twitter.com/DdesimoneDaniel/status/1459916832089985031

    Jeepers. But why would terrorists of any stripe attack a ‘woman’s hospital’?

    Unless a specific person was targeted?
    Dunno. But there have been disturbing amounts of protests and filming of hospitals in recent months.
    Cos of you know what.
    COVID?

    Haven't there been issues in Liverpool over other stuff? Was it abortion?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,803
    A very pleasant afternoon pottering about in the garden, enjoying the essence of autumn.

    Now rounded off with a milky coffee and a Penguin biscuit.

    The simple pleasures can often be the best.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music

    Meghan can't skip this one. Awks
    Have a read of this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
    That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline


    This is an insightful passage

    "In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."

    Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
    That is vomit inducing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I am reading a superb book at the moment that I got for my birthday called Diary of a DA by Herbert Stein. He was a famous DA who managed to bring down much of the Mob in New York and New Jersey in the 60s and 70s. He explains that in New York the Mafia owned the politicians who did what they were told but in NJ the politicians owned the mob who got a cut of the largesse that was taken off every public contract.

    The level of corruption in both states was beyond anything we have seen in this country for several centuries. It was backed by violence, union muscle and a totally corrupt institutional structure which included most of the Judges. For all our peccadillos and flaws we really don't appreciate how lucky we are.
    The Mafia is very good at industry-wide extortion, and it's extremely difficult to root out, because the victims of this extortion are also the beneficiaries of it; it's the consumers ultimately who lose out, through having to pay higher prices than if there was proper competition.

    So, for example, every businessman in the district who wants his garbage collected has to use a company whose owners have to pay a percentage to the local equivalent of Tony Soprano, whose family members get a load of no-show jobs in the same company, or the union that operates a closed shop over who can drive trucks in the locality. Turn to a competitor, and you might just get your shop or office burned down, or the competitor will get its trucks sabotaged. So, it's easier just to pass the costs on to the consumers, who can't go anywhere else.

    Public construction contracts likewise offer a great opportunity for everyone involved to be getting a percentage, with taxpayers ultimately footing the bill.
    Sure, and it does sometimes happen in this country. There is a case at the moment involving officials in Edinburgh City Council and various repair contracts but it is not endemic or even particularly common for which we should be thankful.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    So far, David Warner has been taking the bowling apart like a child pulling at paper.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,567
    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    That's arguable. His authority was subordinate to hers, and his title expired automatically upon her death. The Philip and Mary situation wasn't very much like the William and Mary arrangement after the Glorious Revolution at all.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
    75billion-1.

    Roughly the same odds as Southee taking a wicket here.
    Surely Australia have won because they got to bat second? It meant the better team lost in each of the semis.
    Eoin Morgan should be sacked for failing to ensure England got bowled out of for 110 in Saffer match, thus knocking out the Aussies.
    He should just have declared. Nothing would have pissed off the Aussies more.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
    Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
    Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.

    No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
  • Sean_F said:

    It's strange how governments make these unforced errors. It ought to have been blindingly obvious that trying to overturn the procedures on behalf of Owen Paterson would turn out far worse (even for Paterson) than his just taking his punishment.

    The story I have heard from a couple of people is that few in the Tory Party really did dig deep into the story/report because they believed Paterson that the process contributed to the death of his wife.

    I think a smidgen of sympathy contributed to this but it was clear to anyone who had read the report that Paterson had behaved terribly and a 30 day suspension was on the light side.
    It was very sad that Paterson's wife felt the only way out was to commit suicide. I don't think that Paterson is entirely blameless there. His behaviour started the enquiry, which may have compounded her death.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    Further to my previous comment of the 12 completed matches in Dubai the team chasing has won 11 times. This is very likely to be the 12th. We really cannot have a major cricket tournament which is so obviously determined by the toss, it just ruins it.

    (And if this does not bugger up the Aussies nothing will).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K

    image
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    That's arguable. His authority was subordinate to hers, and his title expired automatically upon her death. The Philip and Mary situation wasn't very much like the William and Mary arrangement after the Glorious Revolution at all.
    If it's arguable coinage was issued in his name, then I have a problem as I own several fakes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    UK Local R

    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    By-election news:

    Vote Labour, Get Wood

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-59281956

    Great work from the picture editors there on Paterson.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,613
    edited November 2021
    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are there any markets on Charles' regnal name?

    George VII sounds better than Charles III.....

    And although he's not limited to his given names there's a Philip and an Arthur in there too...

    Monarchs in this country won't be able to get away with that anymore. As has been noted on here before he'd be a laughing stock if he tried to get us to call him something else after 70+years of being Charles. Lay everything else.
    William might pick a different name when he gets the gig though - if the British state survives that long intact.

    If he sticks with his own name he'll be known as King William V, but he'll only be the fourth William to be king in Scotland. Cue a tremendous amount of aggrieved wailing.
    That's why we've got the ship "Queen Mary 2"

    When launching what was Q4 (the replacements for the original Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth) Cunard had decided to name the new ship "Queen Elizabeth", but on the day HMQEII waved away the naming card and announced "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth the second", (well, if both your mum & your granny have named ships after themselves, and them merely queens consort, not queen regnant like you are, why not?) but of course in Scotland, where the new liner was being built (slowly) HMQEII is the first Queen Elizabeth - so Cunard were in a pickle. They ignored questions about "is it named after the first liner of that name or the current monarch" and announced that in swinging sixties style they'll use an Arabic "2" rather than Roman "II" muddying the water further. So over the decades as the QE2 grew to become the most famous liner in the world and Carnival decided to buy her and Cunard so they could build a new one, the new Queen Mary became the Queen Mary 2 - and this time HMQEII stuck to the script, though I like to think she said "I name this ship, Queen Mary, too."
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,803

    Cicero said:

    The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.

    So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.

    Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.

    The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
    STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
    A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.

    'Surplus votes'. WTF?

    And it takes a week to count the ballots.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    Cases summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    DavidL said:

    Further to my previous comment of the 12 completed matches in Dubai the team chasing has won 11 times. This is very likely to be the 12th. We really cannot have a major cricket tournament which is so obviously determined by the toss, it just ruins it.

    (And if this does not bugger up the Aussies nothing will).

    Well, the Aussies are on course to win and they are of course the biggest tossers out there.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    Hospitals

    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    UK deaths

    image
  • ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
    He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.

    Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
    Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
    Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.

    No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
    Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,822
    Age related data

    image
    image
    image

    image
    image
    image
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....


    A week or two?

    Please God no!

    I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
    It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)

    So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.

    eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
    Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    It is automatic.

    The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
    So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"

    The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

    I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
    IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.

    The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
    Again IIRC, EVERYTHING, apart from work shut down. Radio was beyond tedious! We didn’t have a TV, but I think that shut down, too.pretty sure cinemas were closed.
    They need to keep the taverns open. So we can suffocate a few choirboys*

    I've just realised that we are going to get horrible videos of Republicans and Irish loons and Britophobes doing celebrations

    We must prepare to drone them

    *old French expression for boozing. I may have got it wrong
    The Guardian report on the Queen's absence from the Cenotaph wreath-laying states that the crowd joined in with God Save the Queen with gusto, which even a bitter old cynical republican like myself finds quite moving.
    I noticed that too....
  • Anyway, I must be off. Race starts in 23 minutes.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,987

    Cicero said:

    The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.

    So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.

    Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.

    The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
    STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
    A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.

    'Surplus votes'. WTF?

    And it takes a week to count the ballots.
    You can have it quick or you can have it right!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seething with sin?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited November 2021
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
    Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
    Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.

    No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
    Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
    An alternative option, certainly, but I was operating on the premise of retention. I'd favour reform, but I wasn't actually 100% opposed to the idea of a 100 seat chamber with 25 from each of the Home Nations. Sure, unrepresentative, but that's hardly an issue it is not dealing with already. But I can see the problems with such a balance.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    edited November 2021

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
    He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.

    Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
    Ten weeks - declared Queen by the legatine council on 7th April 1141, driven out by the Londoners on 24th June the same year in favour of Queen Matilda de Bolougne.

    She didn't control much of England in that time either, including, crucially, Kent. But then, neither did Stephen for most of his reign.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904
    Andy_JS said:

    England is a land seething with sin and - especially - corruption. Always has and always will.

    Difference with other nations is, that English believe this is an unnatural state of affairs. That since God is an Englishman (or Englishwoman if you wokish) then it follows that England must be a godly (or at least moral/ethical) land. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

    What looks to the rest of the world like rank hypocrisy is really self delusion.

    I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seething with sin?
    We should be so lucky.
  • This really is shaping up to be a shitty sporting Sunday.

    Aussies become world champions and the Dutch shunt wins the GP/finishes ahead of our brave Sir Lewis today.

    Look on the bright side: at least Liverpool didn't lose again :lol:
  • kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.

    Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense.
    Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record).
    Owen Paterson.
    IDS.
    The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.

    The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.

    But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.

    Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
    Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
    Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.

    No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
    Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
    An alternative option, certainly, but I was operating on the premise of retention. I'd favour reform, but I wasn't actually 100% opposed to the idea of a 100 seat chamber with 25 from each of the Home Nations. Sure, unrepresentative, but that's hardly an issue it is not dealing with already. But I can see the problems with such a balance.
    The problem being that it is unacceptable.

    My solution would be 700 (ie 0.001% of the population) chosen at random for one year.

    I suppose you could adjust for age, intelligence and criminality.
  • Liverpool Women's Hospital: Counter-terror police lead investigation into taxi explosion that kills one

    The vehicle exploded outside the hospital at 11am on Sunday morning. Witnesses reported hearing a loud bang before seeing a taxi on fire in the car park.


    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1459919882397667337?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    Cicero said:

    The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.

    So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.

    Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.

    The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
    STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
    A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.

    'Surplus votes'. WTF?

    And it takes a week to count the ballots.
    You can have it quick or you can have it right!
    The Americans had some difficulty managing either of them even under FPTP.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,189

    Liverpool Women's Hospital: Counter-terror police lead investigation into taxi explosion that kills one

    The vehicle exploded outside the hospital at 11am on Sunday morning. Witnesses reported hearing a loud bang before seeing a taxi on fire in the car park.


    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1459919882397667337?s=20

    11am. Hmmm.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited November 2021

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.

    He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
    He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
    Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
    He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.

    Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
    Yes, I've never been entirely clear why she has not counted, especially since we officially date Charles II from 1649 despite not, in England at least, being recognised or having any power for a long time, and I'd presumed Henry II had probably stated she had officially been Queen (notwithstanding how the civil war had been brought to an end). Even if it was only 10 weeks as ydoethur says, crowned is crowned.
  • Cicero said:

    The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.

    So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.

    Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.

    The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
    STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
    A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.

    'Surplus votes'. WTF?

    And it takes a week to count the ballots.
    surplus votes mean more votes than is required to elect someone.

    It's a way of trying to match the no. of seats to the percentage of votes.

    It doesn't take a week either. In scotland, it takes 2 or 3 days at the most. This isn't a problem as the sitting PM is still PM until the new government takes over.

    What's hard about it?


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    Marsh and Warner demonstrating with painful clarity just how inadequate that Kiwi total is.
  • ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.

    Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.

    Odds on Prince William choosing Henry/Harry as his regnal name?
    75billion-1.

    Roughly the same odds as Southee taking a wicket here.
    Surely Australia have won because they got to bat second? It meant the better team lost in each of the semis.
    Eoin Morgan should be sacked for failing to ensure England got bowled out of for 110 in Saffer match, thus knocking out the Aussies.
    He should just have declared. Nothing would have pissed off the Aussies more.
    I believe you are no longer allowed to declare an innings closed in a limited-overs game
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    Too little, too late.
This discussion has been closed.