Rise Of Kingdoms Pc Download

[Arlyne Doepner]

11 Civilizations, 27 Heroes, Real Warfare

From the depths of obscurity to the peaks of legend, you will be the author of your civilization's history. Will you launch epic wars and conquer the entire world? Or rise up as a virtuous leader renowned for your sagacity? Will you set off to explore the unknown as a pioneer? Or dedicate yourself to helping your own people?

Only time will tell...

From exalted barbarians to altars of darkness, many new challenges await you within the Lost Kingdom. However, the greatest challenge of all will be the governors from several (eight) other kingdoms who will join you there...

Each season of the Lost Kingdom will be a long-term competition (50 Days) between multiple kingdoms lasting for more than two months. Who will sit upon the high throne when the light of past glory shines once more over the Lost Kingdom?The Lost Kingdom events will be gradually opened up to all kingdoms following the update. All governors and alliances will be able to participate in these events!

The Lost Kingdom, also called Kingdom versus Kingdom (KvK), is divided into multiple smaller phases. These smaller phases can be categorized into two major phases: pre-KvK and KvK. Pre-KvK defines the phase before players are actually inside the Lost Kingdom map.

This magnificent kingdom has been overrun by barbarian for far too long. the Ancient flames of the Last Crusade have been rekindled once more. Who will be master of the Lost Kingdom once all is said and done?

You, your alliance, and the rest of your kingdom will have a chance to compete directly with other kingdoms. This will be a long contest. The price of victory will be great, but the rewards will be greater still. Good luck!

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

We expect the general government debt ratio of the United Kingdom (rated AA) to rise from 101% of GDP as of end-2023 to nearly 110% by 2029, reversing the modest debt reduction since 2020 highs driven by a strong post-Covid economic recovery and elevated inflation. This is even assuming a comparatively benign base case that excludes recession in the years to 2029. We are forecasting 0.8% growth this year before 1.4% next year.

Regardless of the outcome of general elections, we consider it unlikely that UK budgetary policies and the fiscal framework will be strengthened materially after the elections, which will prevent a sustained decline in the trajectory of debt in the coming years.

Specifically, our AA assessment of the UK reflects a one-notch positive adjustment acknowledging the reserve-currency strengths of sterling and further upward adjustments for the independent monetary policy framework and excellent debt profile and market access. This reflects the very-long average debt maturity, excellent capital-market access and a significant amount of government debt still held by the Bank of England, resulting in government partly owing the debt to itself.

The general government deficit is projected to stay above 3% of GDP during each year of our forecast horizon to 2029. Leaving aside markets and rating agencies, UK fiscal rules are not strongly binding as the commitment to achieve net borrowing of not more than 3% of GDP and net debt declining on a one-year basis by the fifth year of a given forecasting period means that the year the government has committed to curtailing debt never in fact arrives and shifts forward one year each year. So, reducing debt is perpetually a promise for the future rather than the highest priority of the present.

Only three Chancellors of the Exchequer have been in office for five years or longer, which weakens any commitment to reduce debt by the fifth year of the forecast horizon. Moreover, the fact that UK fiscal rules have been changed on six separate occasions since 2011 after prevailing objectives became inconvenient does not bolster confidence. The UK leaving the European Union in 2020 removed the straight-jacket of more-binding EU Maastricht rules overseen externally, but a core driver of Brexit was also precisely that: returning sovereignty.

The UK spent more than GBP 120bn on debt interest payments in fiscal year 2022-23, more than for any other public commitment except for health and social care. The estimated net interest payments of 2.3% of GDP (or 5.8% of general-government revenue) for this year are high compared to the interest service of similarly rated sovereigns (Figure 1).

Higher interest payments reduce the capacity to cut budget deficits unless fiscal trade-offs are found elsewhere in the public accounts. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, a primary budget surplus of around 1.3% of GDP is needed to stabilise debt medium run, compared against an estimated primary deficit of 1.2% as of fiscal year 2023-24.

The fact that the UK has not achieved a primary surplus since 2001 despite a near-constant objective of achieving one demonstrates the challenge of realising a sustainable fiscal trajectory. This is particularly the case within the current ecosystem of comparatively high interest rates and outstanding military, social and climate spending requirements.

While the UK holds meaningful credit strengths anchoring its tolerance for high debt levels, the current rising debt trajectory represents a concern for the ratings in the medium to long run. This may risk a sudden re-appraisal of the sovereign within capital markets if debt risk is not managed prudently and especially if the reserve-currency benefits of the pound were to weaken.

For many years I have studied welfare policies and social conditions in the UK from the late nineteenth century to the present.[1] I have become increasingly concerned about the decline of the welfare state and the sharp rise in poverty since the 1980s and especially since 2010, as discussed in my recent book Divided Kingdom. A History of Britain, 1900 to the Present.[2] I am not alone in being even more alarmed by the further increase in poverty due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its precise extent and the ultimate impact are not yet clear because the pandemic continues, but here I will briefly discuss what we know about the social, economic and political impact of the pandemic in the UK to the present (February 2021).

Pre-pandemic poverty was substantially due to the decline of the Welfare State since the 1980s. It became even more severe in the pandemic due to unemployment following the full or partial closure of businesses, highest among 16-24-year olds among whom it rose from 12.1% in January to March 2020 to 14.2% in September-November 2020.[6] As the economic impact of the pandemic became evident, from March 2020 the government funded 80% of the normal wages of many people temporarily unemployed due to lockdown, expecting employers to pay the remaining 20%. But many did not, to at least 2 million lower-paid workers. 80% of an inadequate wage increased poverty. Also many lower-paid and self-employed workers were excluded from the scheme. UC payments were temporarily raised by 20 per week, suggesting its previous inadequacy, currently extended to the end of April 2021, with the government under strong pressure, including from its own Conservative party, to extend it. There were over 6 million new applicants for UC from March to October 2020, when 12 million adults and 6 million children were in households dependent upon it. The continuing inadequacy of support for those in need is suggested by the rise in food bank use by at least 180% from March-October 2020.[7] There are no more recent statistics but usage remains very high and is unlikely to have fallen. Homelessness has also kept rising.

Black and Minority Ethnic communities, particularly those originating in Bangladesh and Pakistan, experience especially high levels of poverty and they have suffered exceptionally high death rates from COVID-19, mainly because they have low incomes, work in environments with poor protection against infection and often live in overcrowded housing. In December 2020, 34% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers earned so little that they and their families were in poverty, compared with the 25% average of White families. 25% of single-parent families (mostly headed by mothers) were in poverty.[8]

Race inequalities are long-standing, but COVID-19 has made them more public, as it has exposed other socio-economic inequalities, including between regions. In-work poverty is currently greatest in London, least in Scotland[9]. Poverty and COVID-19 death rates are much greater in parts of Northern England and of London than elsewhere. In England there have been growing tensions between central government and elected local authorities due to government imposition of restrictions without prior warning or negotiation about how best to meet needs, which local government better understands and can better assist than central government or private companies. This continues Conservative policy since the 1980s of reducing the powers and independence of local government and asserting central control.

The crisis has also made more visible high rents and the shortage of affordable housing and cuts to local services to young people and others. Also domestic violence, mental illness and suicide have increased due to household lockdown and financial stress. Disrupted education has exposed stark class differences between richer children who have greater access to computers and other devices for distance learning, more space and more parental support for home learning, than poorer children, with potentially harmful effects on the futures of poorer children.[11]

Many of these problems are the outcome of UK government policies, or lack of them. England was slower than many other countries to impose restrictions when the pandemic started, and again when it revived in autumn 2020, and it has lacked consistent policies. The devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have followed different, often more effective, policies, which there is insufficient space to discuss. Due to public awareness of these differences, COVID-19 may speed the break-up of the UK, already signalled by resistance to Brexit outside England and resentment of its effects now that it has occurred, indicated by growing support for independence especially in Scotland.

c80f0f1006