General Discussions

I realise this is not a political board, but it seems that nothing changes in politics nor history. I noted that within four hours of Keir Starmer’s resignation as Prime Minister of the UK, some journalist was already talking about what the next PM would be doing in the first hundred days.

Now, of course, the term “the Hundred Days” was not coined by Napoleon, but by Comte Chabrol, prefect of the department of the Seine, who addressed the King in a speech that began "Sire,—One hundred days have passed away since your majesty, forced to tear yourself from your dearest affections, left your capital amidst tears and public consternation.” It had however also marked a time of great activity by Napoleon, which is probably why the term was popularised by US President FD Roosevelt in a radio speech on July 24, 1933, marking the start of his Presidency (although the period refers to a sitting of Congress that spring).

Back in British current politics, the right-wing Reform party is setting out its programme for the first hundred days in government, again a period of great activity. However, they also criticise the new UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham and his programme, which is a ten year plan to change the UK economy - so basically a long-term methodical process of change.

I have recently read that, on being made Minister of War in September 1801, Archduke Charles wrote that he would require ten years to prepare the Austrian army for war.

Much as we are all taught that Biblical references to 7 and 40 represent short and long periods, it seems that “100 days” and “10 years” are the standard periods in history.