|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 17, 2020 21:52:14 GMT
That's how I've always imagined a Vatican City football team - 11 elderly cardinals walking around the pitch. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,844 
|
Post by Crimson King on Jan 17, 2020 23:25:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jan 19, 2020 17:52:00 GMT
But perhaps you have internal knowledge we don't, in particular what it actually means to be "suspended from holding office in the Labour Party but not suspended from the Labour whip" because that sounds nuts. It’s always dangerous to disagree with Davıd Boothroyd when discussing the technicalities of elections or council or parliamentary procedure. He’s not always right, but he’s right far more often as he’s wrong. This is a case where something which “sounds nuts” is in fact standard procedure in many councils around the country. A member may be suspended from their party’s Group on the Council but that member still counts as a member of that Group for the purposes of calculating Committee entitlements. Moreover, certainly in the Conservative Party and, I guess, probably in the Labour Party a suspended member is still subject to the rules of the Group he or she is suspended from! |
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Jan 19, 2020 18:00:32 GMT
It's a bit disturbing to see Bede referred to in passing as just "some monk". And whatever the maths, as a historian I always tell my classes that as we begin numbering AD dates from Year 1 not Year zero (whatever the reason), this is therefore the last year of a decade not the first (and it's interesting to note that the Victorians celebrated their new Millenium in 1901) We live in an age when people won’t let facts get in the way of what they want to believe, however objectively wrong those people may be. Unfortunately, the concept of zero was far from appreciated when our dating system was established. But that’s where we are. Interestingly, astronomical time does use a year zero to ease calculations, meaning that astronomic data is a year out from calendar data pre year 1AD. For those who want a reorganised calendar with a logical year zero in it, which solution do you prefer - renumbering all pre year 1AD dates or renumbering all post year 1BC dates? Either way you’ll then get your desire for the decade to change when the penultimate integer in the date changes. Until then, just accept the illogical and counter-intuitive reality of our calendar or continue to wallow in squalid error. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Jan 22, 2020 11:44:31 GMT
I haven't seen as much argument this time on that old perennial of when does the decade start and most people seem to have accepted the common sense (but for purists technically wrong) solution that 2020 is part of the twenties. I like to think of it that way too as I can then say I have lived in 10 decades, having been born in the 1930's. If you make me wait another 11 months or so I might never make it  . Anyway, it also means that not just Labour , but also Tories and Greens have lost vote share "this " decade, which can't be bad for a Lib Dem perspective. And the SNP and Plaid have gone nowhere. It depends on whether you believe that centuries and decades have to align, and I don't think they do. Centuries go from year 1 to year 100, there being no "Year 0", so the 20th century went from 1901 to 2000. But decades called the "twenties", "thirties" and so on surely include the years from e.g. 1920-1929, 1930-1939? Don't they?
The 20th century went from 1914 to 1989. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Jan 22, 2020 11:45:47 GMT
It's a bit disturbing to see Bede referred to in passing as just "some monk". And whatever the maths, as a historian I always tell my classes that as we begin numbering AD dates from Year 1 not Year zero (whatever the reason), this is therefore the last year of a decade not the first (and it's interesting to note that the Victorians celebrated their new Millenium in 1901) I very much doubt it. Don't think they were that far ahead of their time. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by iang on Jan 22, 2020 13:11:24 GMT
It's a bit disturbing to see Bede referred to in passing as just "some monk". And whatever the maths, as a historian I always tell my classes that as we begin numbering AD dates from Year 1 not Year zero (whatever the reason), this is therefore the last year of a decade not the first (and it's interesting to note that the Victorians celebrated their new Millenium in 1901) I very much doubt it. Don't think they were that far ahead of their time. Fair point - yes of course - meant new century! |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 23, 2020 13:43:10 GMT
I very much doubt it. Don't think they were that far ahead of their time. Fair point - yes of course - meant new century! I seem to recall reading articles in 1999 about how the same debate existed a century previously, actually. |
|
.