Westie

Only the King can order Bertie home. Maidstone left England with a mandate from John Company, and as such may be de jure governor, but until letter's patent catch up with him, he does not yet have the authority of the King. He cannot order Bertie home; only take over as a Governor with similar authority to a manager. He has, for example, complete control over the affairs of the Company (effectively 90% of things), but things done in the Kings name - the Judiciary being a prime example - are not within his purview without th Letter's patent with the seal of the Privy Council.

Jeremy - you should writ a book, "rules for Soap Opera's". Just be mindful of one thing: You can say "this never happens in soap operas" all you want; but you ain't the writer, and I have a funny feeling that the guy who IS the writer doesn't mind breaking the rules. Unlike the writer of a soap, Mark doesn't get monetary rewards (though if he were to host these stories himself with a few google ads im sure he'd make a mint). Mark's prime motivator is the commentary/adulation that is left here. If someone is motivated in such a way, it then becomes oh so probable that stories will take controversial, unexpected and rule-breaking twists.

Thats not how it works in th UK. The UK Gov't dosnt print the money. It's the other way around. The BoE does the printing. And most of that money is actually being used to buy gilts rather than giving the money to the clearing banks What you have to remember is that the government are trying to increase lending at the same time as forcing the banks to hold higher capital ratios - these two goals are at odds with each other. My view of economists is that they are in a room full of levers all connected with rope. Pull one, and it tugs on 3 others. And some ropes are connected to levers that aren't even in the same room - they are connected to the Eurozone or the US, or Asia. Then there are economists trying to control the movement of all these levers with 3 tiny toggle switches. The fact is that an economy is too large and complex to impact with policy. All you can do is nudge in certain directions - but its a bit like trying to direct floodwater with a couple of sandbags. We are now in a position in the UK much like we were in the 1980's. Then, we had too many people employed in unviable nationalised industries. Today, we have too many people employed in the public sector. When you look at the number of jobs created by the private sector since the start of the downturn - its staggering. A HUGE number of new jobs have been created. The problem is that the public sector has been cut faster even than the massive rate of job creation. I don't buy the idea that manufacturing is a necessary part of the economy. If we can't do it competitively, then there is little point in holding on to a romantic notion of the UK as a major output nation. The fact is, if we were manufacturing on a competative basis with China, the only way it could be done is through massive automation - which would have little or no appreciable impact on the jobs market. West

Seriously, theres a team for that ?

Just revisiting this.... Since commentators on CNN made the exact same mistake, I'm afraid I AM going to judge the American education system based on this.

Rule of Reading.... Know your author. Who would've thought that you would have been in any fit state to post on 4.20

Don't sweat it. You gotta go where the flow takes you, but more importantly, I'd rather have a quality chapter than a rushed one. It will be all the more pleasant when its done.

Its a collection of tweets from Americans who obviously have no idea about basic geography. Its not about gullibility. It's fact. There are a group of citizens who are incredibly dense spreading ignorance.

So, the next chapter has started. What I find most interesting here is that we have had a 6 month "jump" in the story - this is the longest "between story" break that has happened since the start of Bloodlines. The last 4 books (excluding "the box" because I think it sits really nicely to one side) were a mammoth undertaking that where story arcs seemed to run into one another. We lost a little of the "historical" perspective and gained a character focussed perspective - which I guess is common to history genres when thing start to catch up to modern times. There are several reasons that I do not think this qualifies as a soap opera (even though it may have some characteristics of that genre). The first is that excepting the 4-book marathon that I have mentioned already, an awful lot has happened between books "off screen". But my main reason, is just that this series is better than that. If Mr Arbour once referred to it as soap like, then he was self deprecating. This series IS literature. Once the next chapter is published, we will see the whole series go over THREE MILLION words. To put that in perspective, you can get 6 "war and peace" or 4 bibles (old and new testament) for that many words. Some of the worlds great literature gained reputation because it caused us to question our certain knowledge - codes of right and wrong, morality and faith. If we are to judge Mark's stories in the same way, then for "paternity" alone, we have 88 pages dedicated to discussion from the nature of fatherhood and brotherhood, to critiques of society through to the meaning of success. We have generated at least a story's length again in social commentary. How methodwriter can argue that baffles me. Just because is doesn't have the lable, doesn't mean we aren't discussing ethics when we talk about whether Brad ordering a "hit" on JJ's coach is "right" or "wrong". And just becuase I don't mention "God" when I say its wrong to commit murder, doesn't mean that my view is not at least in some part governed by my own religious beliefs. So when Jeremy says things "dont seem like things Mark wants to put into his writing", what he means is "I don't want him to write about that". I know that Jeremy would much prefer this story to be a commentary on whether menlo boys would have worn a polo shirt or a v-neck shirt on a summers day and whether pastel colours were fashionable this season or next but for the rest of us this story is one of substance. And for the record, the story is completely awesome. So no, I don't think what we are reading here is "soap opera". And yes, I think this story does raise the "big questions". As for where this story is headed, the title says it all. 9.11 is a generation defining moment. Even for us in the UK, I can remember exactly where I was when the plane struck (latin class). I know where I was when the first tower fell (getting high next to the college lake). This was world defining, and the "war on terror" that followed touched the lives of billions because it wasnt just an American war. Our Prime Minister Tony Blair stood "shoulder to shoulder" with George W. Our troops fought and fell alongside yours. When Paya and I go to New York next year (finances permitting), visiting ground zero is a non-negotiable part of that visit - because that place is not only the place where thousands lost their lives, its also the "first domino" in a chain that hit people I personally know and care about. I'm desperately hoping that Mark will capture this "ripple effect" in some way. Maybe a character who is abroad when it happens? Anyway, great start to the series. West

So, yesterday I posted a rather emotional blog entry on the Death of Margaret Thatcher. She was and is a hero (heroine?) of mine, and to say that I was devastated yesterday was an understatement. Someone commented on that blog entry that they do not feel anywhere near the connection to any politician as I seem to feel with MT - but yesterday I did experience a genuine and heartfelt outpouring of Grief. I remember very clearly the 31st August 1997, waking up to the news that Diana, Princess of Wales had died. I remember being bewildered by the outpouring of such unfiltered emotion for someone who was so distant. Yesterday - nearing 15 years later - was the first time I cam close to understanding that. Now, I know this woman was not perfect. She had some questionable friendships - in a comment I deleted yesterday (more for its tone than its content) her friendship with the dictator Augusto Pinochet was mentioned as an example. It has been pointed out to me that she was no supporter of Gay rights. I dispute this slightly - she voted in favour of decriminalization of sodomy, but at the same time she was a product of her generation. I won't condemn her for that. She became Prime Minister when the UK was in terminal decline. She is vilified because of the huge surge in unemployment due to her policies, and for interest rates being obscenely high. What people forget is that after WW2, Britain kept unemployment artificially low with massive industrial subsidies that by 1979 were crippling the nation. The problem was not unemployment in 1983. it was over-employment in 1979. Bloated industries hell bent on protecting jobs and salaries at any cost meant that the nation had become uncompetitive. The medicine was harsh and radical, but it saved the economy from certain ruin. The interest rate hitting 17% in 1981 was frightening, but not as frightening as the 25% inflation endemic in the 1970's (and hitting that peak again in 1981). The high interest rate stabilised that problem. People remember that she more than doubled VAT (a sales tax), but they forget that she did so to offset a major reduction in income tax. The top tax rate at the time was 86%. She basically said that if you could afford luxuries, you would be taxed more heavily, but that those living hand to mouth would have a low income tax, and food and essentials would be VAT-free. She broke the unions that were holding Britain to ransom at the time. Coal Miners were demanding massive inflation busting pay rises at a time when demand for coal was falling dramatically and cost of extraction increasing exponentially. It must have been very hard to make decisions that put coal miners and their families out of work, but her philosophy of essential fairness - that one man's taxes should not support another man's employment - was sound. I do not believe she got everything right by any means. But she was a "conviction politician". She did what she thought was right, regardless of the political consequences. To often these days politicians leave the hard choices because they think they will lose votes. I'm reminded of Edmund Burke, who said: US Secretary of State James Baker (as he was) described the "thatcher Doctrine" as he called it: Finally, I know that MT was a divisive figure. I know that she raises passions in both supporters and detractors. There will be time enough to analyse her legacy at another time. But at the time of someone's passing, i think it is important to pay respect to their work ethic, and to the fact that they served their nation to the best of their ability. There are people who had "death parties" in the UK last night. That is in poor taste. At the time of my own death (hopefully many years from now) I can think of no greater accolade than for someone to say "he always did what he thought was right". I think it sad therefore that here at GA, a tribute thread had to be deleted because people could not stay a-political and say "Here passed a woman who did what she thought was right". In that spirit, this blog will be locked for comments West

Nah. I'm English through and through. Not sure where the impression that I'm an american Ex-Pat came from, but I was born in Thatchers Britain, and if it wasn't for her, I would not be the person I am today. She and her government shaped my life in a very real and tangible way

Thanks for participating, but your comment was a gross misrepresentation of the truth*, and since this is my blog, I deleted it. *in my opinion

Well, I would be willing to consider Manchester. The last meet we had there was awesome. That said, august bank holiday is the Notting Hill Carnival here in London.. There are too many naked bodies dancing in the street for any self respecting gay man to abandon the capital that weekend... so I guess my opinion wouldn't count for much....

I know that the death of a public figure shouldn't really have too much of an effect on ones emotions, but for me this is devastating. For me this is more seminal than the death of Diana. It could only be worse if the Queen herself had passed. Beyond devastated. It's genuinely numbing for me RIP Margaret Thatcher. The "Iron" Lady. The last great conviction politician. She did what she believed was right (whether you agreed with her or not) and she didn't waver - even if it made her unpopular. Every leader since has been guided by short term-ism. "What will win me the next election". Lady Thatcher wasn't like that. If the Queen is the "Mother of the nation", then Margaret Thatcher was surely the the controlling aunt who gave you the sharp advice and kick up the backside when you needed it. RIP to a Great PM, Stateswoman, Mother, Grandmother and LEGEND. West

With respect, what you gained is an academic perspective on real world knowledge, since you are yet to live in the "real world". That's not to say you having experienced toughness or issues, because I know you have broad experience. However, it is limited through the prism of academia, and through a certain "safety net" that exists for Students and young people in general. You are also limited by your focus on youth culture, which again colours your perspective slightly. I'm not saying this to beat up on you or anything, but if I were to presume to give anyone advice on embarking into the real world, it would be to "know your limitations". West

I live in the UK, which has considerably different working practices to much of continental Europe. Don't lump us in with germany, France, Denmark etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18144320 LINK This shows there isn't much difference between the US and UK, and in fact the difference is almost entirely due to more mandatory paid vacation time, than an actual difference week to week. And as you can see from the chart, your gross generalisation is exactly that - you cannot talk about "europe" as an entity in the same way as you can about the US.

I think you'll find the fact that I'm not in the US is very little to do with it - you don't have a monopoly on hard work (not even close in fact). My previous job was much like yours is..... 55 hours plus per week was not uncommon. I am very lucky in that I now work in a role where I am paid for my expertise, and in particular paid not for "day to day", but for when things go wrong. So unless there is a crisis, I have relaxed hours. In a major situation though, I would be required to work every hour of the day. I must also be prepared to travel back home if on holiday with just 4 hours notice. I was commenting that the 9-5 does exist.... unfortunately its rarer than the average it's made out to be. I realise that I am lucky to have a job with standard hours that are exceptional, and a very decent paycheck.

I pretty much work 10-5 to be honest (although technically I'm "on call" 24/7). I also only attend the office 4 days a week, though on Fridays I "work from home"

Not keen on the Midlands idea, because although its geographically central, transport links there are poor. London is good for transport links, but bad if you have to stay over (not a problem for me, I live in Central London) Will have to think about it....

I'm not sure this would classify as mere intrigue. It would be treason. And these are the waning years of his influence, he isn't stupid enough to commit treason and risk the life of the younger son of an influential Earl.

I don't think Charles James Fox would be behind this. Mark has, in the past, gone to great lengths to maintain historical accuracy with real life players. Within the decade, Charles Fox will join the government as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ("The Foreign Secretary"). Being responsible for the British intelligence services (which of course didnt "officially" exist at this time) made this a sensitive post, to which a man implicated in any form of treason would almost certainly not be appointed.

Don't forget that the Crampton's embraced that time honoured method of legitimising themselves into high society. They inter-married several times with "old money" including Schluters - even bringing in some more exotic old money (class, if not actual cash) from the Grand Pre in France. Also note that even as 1800's immigrants, we have just learned that the Crampton's in fact have a coat of arms. This would indicate that their family - pre-immigration - wasn't exactly downtrodden. Despite the popularised thought.... there isn't a coat of arms for every family. I know that in the US, going back to the mayflower is a big thing, but in terms of being "moneyed" it's the generational equivalent of 10 minutes ago for Europe. If the Crampton's have a coat of arms, and emigrated in the 1800's, I would bet they had some standing from at least the 1500's onwards at least. With regards to Tiffany, I think you are making one hell of an assumption that JJ is going back to LA at all. For whatever purpose, I suspect that Mark is returning focus back to Escorial, and the family will come to be based in a more tightly knit group

But the thing is that a story can just cover a 9 month period now, and the breaks between them are smaller. Mark could easily break from Will and still address that stuff. Plus, we have seen story threads created with much more effort than the Water Polo storyline end up being discarded. Moreover, if you look back, I really don't think much has gone into it that it would be a shame to waste.

I'm just hoping for a POV character who is more mature. Stef, Brad, JP etc. Then nobody will care whether Emo culture was in or out or endless discussions about when menlo kids would use certain phrases (sorry to tease:P )

OK, I don't want to get in the middle of a riot here, but you're effectively calling someone racist on the basis of... not very much. I went through the thread "faces" and the only comment Tim made was "oh hell no". He posted his view point with a picture of a very pretty white/blonde girl. All this conveys to me is that he strongly disagreed with your view. He didn't give reasons or further commentary. EVERYTHING you have taken from it there has been extrapolated from that. YOUR interpretation, not Tim's. You posted a black picture, Tim posted a white one, and you automatically jump to the assumption that its about colour, and that may not be the case. So when you say it bothers you that Tim's made some assumptions about you, in my mind you have made some about him and in doing so have made some very serious implications against his character. I'm not here to defend Tim, but I think on the specific point about the picture, you have completely over-reacted.