Stuart is correct, we Scots Tories see the LibDems as cuckoos in around 8-10 of our seats and we want them back. In Caithness, Sutherland & ER we were delighted when Robbie Rowantree the LibDem got humped by Rob Gibson of the SNP in 2011 because the traitor had been Tory Chairman in the constituency, then stood as Tory candidate in Inverness before jumping ship just as Jamie Stone had done 30 years earlier to get elected as a LibDem on the council. Our joy was complete when having failed to hold the Holyrood seat, he also failed to get re-elected to Highland Council.
Danny might be an exception. There is a history in Inverness of Tories voting Liberal to keep the Liberal MP in. "We" did it for 30 years to keep Russell Johnston in post. I cant see (m)any Tories voting LibDem at the GE in Aberdeenshire, Argyll, NE Fife, Edinburgh or the Borders. The Euro elections will be very interesting in Scotland to see the split between Tories and LibDems.
You're expecting Yes to win the referendum, though, in which case this becomes academic.
Nope. As I have stated many times I haven't a clue who will win the indyref. My only predictions are: high turnout and both Y and N in the 40 to 60 percent range.
Stuart I think Sean F was actually referring to me. I have been convinced for some YES will scrape a narrow win simply because on the ground they are highly organised and working on the 400,000 not currently registered and the 2 million who didn't vote in 2011. If YES wins I would expect Cameron to lodge a Parliament Act bill to disenfranchise the 59 Scots MPs from Easter 2015 when the current parliament is dissolved. We Scots would then concentrate on winning back our former seats at Holyrood as the SNP could be rewarded in 2016 the way Winston Churchill was in 1945.
If Yes wins in September then the SNP can fuck off as far as I am concerned. They will have fulfilled their purpose and can be safely discarded. I say this as a lifelong member.
OGH now talking on Twitter about a new Survation Euro poll with Tories overtaking UKIP for 2nd place.
A poll the other day had the Tories 1% ahead of UKIP for the Euros.
A CON victory at the Euros would be a total gift to the YES campaign. Unlikely, but feasible. Now we just need England to reach the Last Eight and we are in with a good shout here.
Stenhousmuir winning at home is a "massive boost to the Yes campaign" apparently..
Do Referees get fined ? Even if they are absolute a***holes !
Look, he seen something he wanted to and reacted prematurely and made a very bad decision with disastrous consequences....oh sorry are we talking about Andre Marriner?
A LibDem score of Zero for the Euros? Isn't an asterisk traditional in such circumstances, I know that Ming the Merciful and other yellow pox grandees love to remind everyone how they once had an asterisk.
On fees, if the default rate on £3k a year has shot up to 45%, just imagine what it's going to be when the ching is £9k a year.
A major problem for Labour will be if the media has decided that the narrative is moving to the Tories as all 3 of tonight's polls are suggesting, that might push the numbers through cross-over sooner rather than later. Wonder what Lord Ashcroft's poll in the Sun is going to say?
For me the shock poll is the one on the Euros - with the Cons just 4 behind Labour - if that trend were to continue Labour might have a poor result in the Euros. However, this is not the night to get over-excited about a few polls.
And if you want to practice singing along, here is "Вечная память" (Memory Eternal!) the final verse of the Russian Orthodox Liturgy for Departed Souls.
Deacon: In a blessed falling asleep, grant, O Lord, eternal rest unto Thy departed servant Basil and make his/her memory to be eternal!
Note, 'pouter, if you wish to play a prominent role in the sending off of your greatest friend, you will have to learn how to sing deeper than any Bee Gee,
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
It will be that Yougov poll showing the Tories and Labour are equal.
That's right, laugh it off but the reality is very much against Miliband. His reply to the budget was a hopeless response full of nothing. No wonder the troops aren't happy.
The story of Gideon is an interesting one, he won a surprise victory, then refused the crown:
When the Israelite men were assembled, God told Gideon that there were too many, that they would claim the victory as their own, instead of giving God the glory. So He ordered Gideon to send home every man who was afraid. Immediately, 22,000 men returned home, leaving only 10,000 remaining. God had Gideon further test their readiness and thinned the army down to 300 men. That night, Gideon gave each man a trumpet, a torch and a clay jar. They surrounded the enemy camp, with each torch hidden inside the jar. At Gideon's signal, every man blew his trumpet and broke his jar. The confused Midianites turned on one another, with the survivors fleeing the camp. Gideon and his courageous 300 men chased the escapees and cut off their retreat. The victory was the Lord's. Israel then had quietness for 40 years for the remainder of Gideon's life.
Once the Israelites were delivered from the oppression of the Midianites, they begged Gideon to be their king, but he refused. “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.” (8:23) His desire was for the Israelites to turn to God, their true King. For his valiant obedience and heart of humility, Gideon is in the superstar circle, mentioned in the Hall of Fame of Faith in Hebrews 11. He did not seek self-glorification, but rather the glorification of God. For this, Gideon was a true hero.
A lead can drift in and drift out but if a party hasn't got the members to get their vote out what chance does it have?
Both points are valuable. -Ground operations are important.
-A lead of 1% - or whatever - it might be, call it 3 or 4% - is pretty low for an opposition party with a year to go before an election, is it not? Low for a party to win from, I would think. Also of course - Leads don't just drift in and out, they also trend.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
A major problem for Labour will be if the media has decided that the narrative is moving to the Tories as all 3 of tonight's polls are suggesting, that might push the numbers through cross-over sooner rather than later. Wonder what Lord Ashcroft's poll in the Sun is going to say?
The headline says something about the public not trusting Cameron over the EU. I am getting a bit of a soft spot for the dear lord.
Given the look of the Sunday Front Pages, it doesn't seem that they have anything about the budget. Got to be a first for a budget in a very long time, that the papers haven't found some something to go nuclear about [yet]....stupid spats over a tw@tter don't count, I am talking about the actual numbers.
However, this is not the night to get over-excited about a few polls.
This is pb.com , plenty get over-excited every night about a single poll never mind a few .
I would like to point out that not all polls get people excited on here. Certain ones, and we know which, would be lucky to get the odd post about it despite it being the article header.
And if you want to practice singing along, here is "Вечная память" (Memory Eternal!) the final verse of the Russian Orthodox Liturgy for Departed Souls.
Deacon: In a blessed falling asleep, grant, O Lord, eternal rest unto Thy departed servant Basil and make his/her memory to be eternal!
Note, 'pouter, if you wish to play a prominent role in the sending off of your greatest friend, you will have to learn how to sing deeper than any Bee Gee,
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
I remember nasty little boys at primary school who based whole playground bullying campaigns on non-standard given names. Calling Osborne "Gideon" is somewhere on the spectrum between puerile name-calling, and dog-whistle anti-semitism. Finding a Kipper on that spectrum causes me very little surprise.
For me the shock poll is the one on the Euros - with the Cons just 4 behind Labour - if that trend were to continue Labour might have a poor result in the Euros. However, this is not the night to get over-excited about a few polls.
Labour got a projected vote share of 29% in last year's local elections. I don't see them doing better in a four-way contest this year, and they'll probably do worse than that in the Euros. But, I doubt the Tories will match their score from 2009.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
It is also quite common in some families for boys to use a middle name as is the case in mine and of course the last 3 male monarchs and probably the next one too.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
As it takes zero effort and for some reason really needles Con supporters why not? If it didn't so obviously get under the skin people would stop doing it.
'That's right, laugh it off but the reality is very much against Miliband. His reply to the budget was a hopeless response full of nothing. No wonder the troops aren't happy.'
And the PBKinnocks were telling us Torybingo was going to be a game changer.
Just think, if it hadn't been for the game changing, political earthquake of Bingogate, Con's might have had a lead tonight!
I think Bingogate may have just tipped it off equal and into Labour lead. For Avery LP equal is when the two percentages ARE the same.
1% Lab lead with 12 months to go. You wouldn't say things are going great for Lab surely?
The week following Gideon's awesome budget was always going to give a short term boost to Con; let's wait and see where the polls are on mid May shall we?
'That's right, laugh it off but the reality is very much against Miliband. His reply to the budget was a hopeless response full of nothing. No wonder the troops aren't happy.'
And the PBKinnocks were telling us Torybingo was going to be a game changer.
The PB Hodges were predicting weekend crossovers due to the greatest budget in political history.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
I find it rather amusing that he did so I grant you. There were plenty of James' and not a few Leonards in my comprehensive school. No Gideons.
Rightly or wrongly Gideon is considered by some as a name well or possibly even exclusively associated with Aristocrats and Landed gentry.
Rightly or wrongly it is considered by some that someone seeking high office in the modern UK from the aristocratic or landed gentry classes would therefore find the name an impediment to that goal.
Rightly or wrongly the name change is seen as an act of political expediency.
Nothing to do with it having Jewish origins ,as do many British forenames including my own.
The cases of Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan are also not an exact comparison as they used their birth middle names which is not uncommon for people to do. Mr Osborne appears to have added an extra name which was not any of his birth names.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
It is also quite common in some families for boys to use a middle name as is the case in mine and of course the last 3 male monarchs and probably the next one too.
A shame, Charles should take a nod to history and use his first given name rather than George (although Philip II or Arthur II would ruffle a few feathers).
Compouter dear chap, should fate decree that you should visit the northern reaches of mainland North Britain this summer, be sure to let me know. Would be delightful to have you over for a spot of afternoon tea. Several PBers have visited over the years though my noble kinsman Jack W hasn't yet come to sample my 300 year old Jacobite roses.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
As it takes zero effort and for some reason really needles Con supporters why not? If it didn't so obviously get under the skin people would stop doing it.
It doesn't bother me, I'm no great fan of Osborne's and in fact I think that economic policy should be a collective effort rather than down to some eminence grise. Having said that, it does seem to be going OK at the moment. But if you are going to play the man rather than the ball, why not do it for something substantial rather than the trivial matter of what name a man prefers to be known by?
The story of Gideon is an interesting one, he won a surprise victory, then refused the crown:
When the Israelite men were assembled, God told Gideon that there were too many, that they would claim the victory as their own, instead of giving God the glory. So He ordered Gideon to send home every man who was afraid. Immediately, 22,000 men returned home, leaving only 10,000 remaining. God had Gideon further test their readiness and thinned the army down to 300 men. That night, Gideon gave each man a trumpet, a torch and a clay jar. They surrounded the enemy camp, with each torch hidden inside the jar. At Gideon's signal, every man blew his trumpet and broke his jar. The confused Midianites turned on one another, with the survivors fleeing the camp. Gideon and his courageous 300 men chased the escapees and cut off their retreat. The victory was the Lord's. Israel then had quietness for 40 years for the remainder of Gideon's life.
Once the Israelites were delivered from the oppression of the Midianites, they begged Gideon to be their king, but he refused. “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.” (8:23) His desire was for the Israelites to turn to God, their true King. For his valiant obedience and heart of humility, Gideon is in the superstar circle, mentioned in the Hall of Fame of Faith in Hebrews 11. He did not seek self-glorification, but rather the glorification of God. For this, Gideon was a true hero.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
I find it rather amusing that he did so I grant you. There were plenty of James' and not a few Leonards in my comprehensive school. No Gideons.
Rightly or wrongly Gideon is considered by some as a name well or possibly even exclusively associated with Aristocrats and Landed gentry.
Rightly or wrongly it is considered by some that someone seeking high office in the modern UK from the aristocratic or landed gentry classes would therefore find the name an impediment to that goal.
Rightly or wrongly the name change is seen as an act of political expediency.
Nothing to do with it having Jewish origins ,as do many British forenames including my own.
The cases of Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan are also not an exact comparison as they used their birth middle names which is not uncommon for people to do. Mr Osborne appears to have added an extra name which was not any of his birth names.
Before you spout off about political expediency, maybe you would like to tell me how old he was when he changed it to George.
The current repayments of £3K fees starts at 9% at a threshold of £16 365 of income, the £9K fees are repayable at a threshold of £21 000.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Someone who starts paying back £27k of fees upon reaching a wage of £21k is going to be worse off than someone who starts paying back £9k of fees upon reaching a wage of £16.3k
With the threshold rising to £21,000 itv also means that less fees will be paid back as fewer people will earn enough over the threshold to pay back the lot over 30 years. Therefore we can expect the non payment rate to be higher than the 45% it is under the old system meaning the new system will cost the taxpayer even more.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
As it takes zero effort and for some reason really needles Con supporters why not? If it didn't so obviously get under the skin people would stop doing it.
It doesn't bother me, I'm no great fan of Osborne's and in fact I think that economic policy should be a collective effort rather than down to some eminence grise. Having said that, it does seem to be going OK at the moment. But if you are going to play the man rather than the ball, why not do it for something substantial rather than the trivial matter of what name a man prefers to be known by?
Sure, just saying it seems to work as a needling tactic.
The current repayments of £3K fees starts at 9% at a threshold of £16 365 of income, the £9K fees are repayable at a threshold of £21 000.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Someone who starts paying back £27k of fees upon reaching a wage of £21k is going to be worse off than someone who starts paying back £9k of fees upon reaching a wage of £16.3k
With the threshold rising to £21,000 itv also means that less fees will be paid back as fewer people will earn enough over the threshold to pay back the lot over 30 years. Therefore we can expect the non payment rate to be higher than the 45% it is under the old system meaning the new system will cost the taxpayer even more.
The costs are the same to the taxpayer, so 50% of 9k is a better return than 75% (or even 100%) of 3K.
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
Whether or not this particular poll is accurate there has been a narrowing of the Labour lead in recent times and it wouldn't be surprising if the Tories got a bump in the polls from the extra attention and goodies coming out of the Budget.
The bingo thing, while fun for Lefties, didn't have the same potency as the pasty tax because it was about giving money not taking it away. It does highlight how careful the Conservatives need to be about their messaging, they may not get off so easy in future.
Welcome back dyedwoolie (dyedinsomewoolsomewhere?)
Danny should hold Inverness for one simple reason, he works his constituency extremely hard and is very popular. He is also the most vocal opponent of the SNP's ludicrous policy of putting average speed cameras on the A9 for the next 15 years.
The Danny Alexander price shortens yet again today in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey (LD maj = 8,765)
LD 1/2 (from 4/6) Lab 7/2 SNP 4/1 Con 66/1
1/2 is just a daft price IMHO.
If national polls are replicated, Labour would win this seat. The Liberal position in Scotland is worse than in the uK as a whole.
However, the Tories will switch to help out "their" MP. If he loses, he will move South to a home county Tory seat.
Don't overestimate how many Scottish Tories would be willing to vote tactically for their Lib Dem allies. In Scotland, especially in the Highlands, the Lib Dems are pretty red in tooth and claw. Remember, the SLDs were in coalition with SLab from 1999-2007, and Scottish Tory voters have long memories.
Yes, but I don't think they would let Labour win by default. Remember, Labour has won this seat in recent times though not exactly this seat with current boundary.
The huge shame about Eric Joyce is that he has lots of very thoughtful observations to make and comes across as far more interesting than the average MP. He could have helped restore confidence in politicians. But his demons have consumed him.
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
Of course he would, but then Henry VIII's older brother was being set up to be Arthur II.
My view is that under Charles II, England made huge strides towards being a world power, yes his dad was a pr1ck but the whole point of royalism is that you can't pick and choose. Charles is as good a name as George (when we remember that two Georges were German and one was mad).
The current repayments of £3K fees starts at 9% at a threshold of £16 365 of income, the £9K fees are repayable at a threshold of £21 000.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Someone who starts paying back £27k of fees upon reaching a wage of £21k is going to be worse off than someone who starts paying back £9k of fees upon reaching a wage of £16.3k
With the threshold rising to £21,000 itv also means that less fees will be paid back as fewer people will earn enough over the threshold to pay back the lot over 30 years. Therefore we can expect the non payment rate to be higher than the 45% it is under the old system meaning the new system will cost the taxpayer even more.
The Browne review that recommended the rise in tuition fees was commissioned under the last Labour government, who also refused to rule out fee rises in the 2010 manifesto.
If only the rich have to repay the fees, and low earners never repay, what is the problem to a Socialist? Should we send the baliffs to those on low income, or should we write off the debts of high earners?
You seem to not understand student finance very well, Paul.
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
Before you spout off about political expediency, maybe you would like to tell me how old he was when he changed it to George.
My daughter is 10 years old and wants to become prime minister.
I used it because I am in the habit of casually referring to him as Gideon as are many people know. If I say George or Osborne they might not immediately twig on to who I am on about. Say Gideon and people know immediately as there are currently no other Gideons in public life (that I know of)
I didn't quite appreciate how much it needled people in certain quaters!
The current repayments of £3K fees starts at 9% at a threshold of £16 365 of income, the £9K fees are repayable at a threshold of £21 000.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Someone who starts paying back £27k of fees upon reaching a wage of £21k is going to be worse off than someone who starts paying back £9k of fees upon reaching a wage of £16.3k
With the threshold rising to £21,000 itv also means that less fees will be paid back as fewer people will earn enough over the threshold to pay back the lot over 30 years. Therefore we can expect the non payment rate to be higher than the 45% it is under the old system meaning the new system will cost the taxpayer even more.
The Browne review that recommended the rise in tuition fees was commissioned under the last Labour government, who also refused to rule out fee rises in the 2010 manifesto.
If only the rich have to repay the fees, and low earners never repay, what is the problem to a Socialist? Should we send the baliffs to those on low income, or should we write off the debts of high earners?
You seem to not understand student finance very well, Paul.
It is you who do not understand. Can a business sustain a 45% bad debt ? It can only survive through massive subsidies. White elephant to coin a phrase ?
For a Lib Dem to lose 15 points for all this.........
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
I think the polls are overestimating the Tory share for the Euro elections. Evidence: in 2009 they were at about 40% in national polls and went on to get 28% in the Euros.
Having said that, 10/1 would still be value for the Tories to get most votes.
It is pretty peurile to insist on calling George by his original name of Gideon.
We do not refer to Gordon Brown by his original name of James Brown
Indeed, we should do as his Bullingdon chums did and call him Oik.
It's not as if it's unusual for someone to decide they don't want to be called by their first given name. Such as James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan. Or is your point that Gideon sounds er... sort of Jewish?
What the feck has Gideon changing his name got to do with Gideon sounding Jewish....Christ on a bike.
So Callaghan is a tosser for not wanting to be called Len?
Many very common forenames used in this country like, Simon, Luke, John, Andrew etc. and indeed James (as in James Brown) are also of Jewish origin. I really can't understand the point you are trying to make John.
Well, the lefties on here are trying to make some sort of point out of the fact that George Osborne prefers not to be known by his parentally-given first name, indeed that this preference makes him out to be some sort of a c**t.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
I find it rather amusing that he did so I grant you. There were plenty of James' and not a few Leonards in my comprehensive school. No Gideons.
Rightly or wrongly Gideon is considered by some as a name well or possibly even exclusively associated with Aristocrats and Landed gentry. .
Really? I can't think of one aristocrat or member of the landed gentry called Gideon. Spencer maybe, or Randolph, or (de) Vere, but not Gideon. All it brings to mind is those people who put those annoying bibles in hotel bedside cabinets, where you are supposed to find the previous occupant's porn.
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
Well there's coincidence!
It doesn't help that the only reference in a Dark Age text is about 300 after he should've existed and says someone "was no Arthur", in the negative, but the nom de guerre theory fits at least.
Incidentally there's a pub in Penarth near Cardiff called the Bear's Head - which is what Penarth means.
I think the polls are overestimating the Tory share for the Euro elections. Evidence: in 2009 they were at about 40% in national polls and went on to get 28% in the Euros.
The current repayments of £3K fees starts at 9% at a threshold of £16 365 of income, the £9K fees are repayable at a threshold of £21 000.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Someone who starts paying back £27k of fees upon reaching a wage of £21k is going to be worse off than someone who starts paying back £9k of fees upon reaching a wage of £16.3k
With the threshold rising to £21,000 itv also means that less fees will be paid back as fewer people will earn enough over the threshold to pay back the lot over 30 years. Therefore we can expect the non payment rate to be higher than the 45% it is under the old system meaning the new system will cost the taxpayer even more.
The Browne review that recommended the rise in tuition fees was commissioned under the last Labour government, who also refused to rule out fee rises in the 2010 manifesto.
If only the rich have to repay the fees, and low earners never repay, what is the problem to a Socialist? Should we send the baliffs to those on low income, or should we write off the debts of high earners?
You seem to not understand student finance very well, Paul.
It is you who do not understand. Can a business sustain a 45% bad debt ? It can only survive through massive subsidies. White elephant to coin a phrase ?
That's why Wonga's interest rates are so high. They do fine.
Compouter dear chap, should fate decree that you should visit the northern reaches of mainland North Britain this summer, be sure to let me know. Would be delightful to have you over for a spot of afternoon tea. Several PBers have visited over the years though my noble kinsman Jack W hasn't yet come to sample my 300 year old Jacobite roses.
I will see if I can fit you into my calender old boy.
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
"He glutted the ravens, although he was no Arthur". Nennius, I think. The only close-to-contemporary mention of him in the annals. No substance, I'm afraid.
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
Not so - I said after the first post-Budget polls that the Labour vote was stable but it was odd the Tories weren't getting a little bounce from all the good coverage. That's exactly what we're seeing today. I also said that I thought it would settle by next week. We'll soon know, eH?
I think the polls are overestimating the Tory share for the Euro elections. Evidence: in 2009 they were at about 40% in national polls and went on to get 28% in the Euros.
What were they in the Euro polls?
There were well about 30% in the first few polls, although there was only one before May in 2009. That only changed in the last few weeks:
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
I think the polls are overestimating the Tory share for the Euro elections. Evidence: in 2009 they were at about 40% in national polls and went on to get 28% in the Euros.
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
"He glutted the ravens, although he was no Arthur". Nennius, I think. The only close-to-contemporary mention of him in the annals. No substance, I'm afraid.
I appear to be channelling Mr W Owl of this parish.
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
"He glutted the ravens, although he was no Arthur". Nennius, I think. The only close-to-contemporary mention of him in the annals. No substance, I'm afraid.
Indeed, indeed, but apparently the archeology says the Anglo Saxons rebelled in the 440's, swept all before them for 50 odd years, created control of what is now southern and eastern England for themselves and then rather inexplicably got nowhere from about 490 - 550 odd. If Arthur existed the late 5th century " check " is his moment,
The current repayments of £3K fees starts at 9% at a threshold of £16 365 of income, the £9K fees are repayable at a threshold of £21 000.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Someone who starts paying back £27k of fees upon reaching a wage of £21k is going to be worse off than someone who starts paying back £9k of fees upon reaching a wage of £16.3k
With the threshold rising to £21,000 itv also means that less fees will be paid back as fewer people will earn enough over the threshold to pay back the lot over 30 years. Therefore we can expect the non payment rate to be higher than the 45% it is under the old system meaning the new system will cost the taxpayer even more.
The Browne review that recommended the rise in tuition fees was commissioned under the last Labour government, who also refused to rule out fee rises in the 2010 manifesto.
If only the rich have to repay the fees, and low earners never repay, what is the problem to a Socialist? Should we send the baliffs to those on low income, or should we write off the debts of high earners?
You seem to not understand student finance very well, Paul.
It is you who do not understand. Can a business sustain a 45% bad debt ? It can only survive through massive subsidies. White elephant to coin a phrase ?
That's why Wonga's interest rates are so high. They do fine.
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
He didn't look insecure on Wednesday.
As I understand it he changed it at age 13, so it is a reasonable guess that he felt vulnerable to the comments of contemporaries at school. I speculate, but today we would categorise that as bullying, which I don't want to condone.
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
"Ashamed"? Says who? So I suppose Gordon is ashamed to use the name "James"?
People choose to go by a variety of names, I can't understand the significance to be honest.
We could really dig deep and question why Paddy Ashdown preferred to be known by his Army nickname rather than Jeremy.
I really didn't realise that socio-onomastics was quite such a live topic on the Left.
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
Maybe he just didn't like the name? Same reason Blaír was Tony rather than Anthony. Or Brown chose Gordon over James?
I think the polls are overestimating the Tory share for the Euro elections. Evidence: in 2009 they were at about 40% in national polls and went on to get 28% in the Euros.
Having said that, 10/1 would still be value for the Tories to get most votes.
Last time, there were quite a few shy kippers. This time they are more outspoken. Indeed the Tories maybe shy again !
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
"He glutted the ravens, although he was no Arthur". Nennius, I think. The only close-to-contemporary mention of him in the annals. No substance, I'm afraid.
Indeed, indeed, but apparently the archeology says the Anglo Saxons rebelled in the 440's, swept all before them for 50 odd years, created control of what is now southern and eastern England for themselves and then rather inexplicably got nowhere from about 490 - 550 odd. If Arthur existed the late 5th century " check " is his moment,
Assuming it does... we could be looking for Vortigern or Ambrosius Aurelianus rather than Arthur.
And in any case I think the racial British vs Anglo Saxons meme is a bit simplistic, I suspect in the late C5 the Saes were continuing to behave as foederati, propping up local Welsh kingdoms.
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
Not so - I said after the first post-Budget polls that the Labour vote was stable but it was odd the Tories weren't getting a little bounce from all the good coverage. That's exactly what we're seeing today. I also said that I thought it would settle by next week. We'll soon know, eH?
Do you not have ANYTHING to say on the latest indyref poll, from ICM, no less?
No 46, Yes 39.
Your party is facing the serious possibility of EXTINCTION in September. Forget about the 2015 GE, Labour - so reliant on Scotland - is possibly going to have its heartland ripped away - all those Scots MPs, all that ideological energy, half your history, from Keir Hardie to Gordon Brown: everything.
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
Not so - I said after the first post-Budget polls that the Labour vote was stable but it was odd the Tories weren't getting a little bounce from all the good coverage. That's exactly what we're seeing today. I also said that I thought it would settle by next week. We'll soon know, eH?
Do you not have ANYTHING to say on the latest indyref poll, from ICM, no less?
No 46, Yes 39.
Your party is facing the serious possibility of EXTINCTION in September. Forget about the 2015 GE, Labour - so reliant on Scotland - is possibly going to have its heartland ripped away - all those Scots MPs, all that ideological energy, half your history, from Keir Hardie to Gordon Brown: everything.
I do not think he is insecure, indeed he seems to be enjoying himself tremendously. One could perhaps accuse him of being rather overconfident, but not insecure.
The insecurity is on your part, resorting to peurile and vacuous attacks, rather than coherent argument.
George is riding high and in control. Labour are floundering. That is the current state of play.
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
Maybe he just didn't like the name? Same reason Blaír was Tony rather than Anthony. Or Brown chose Gordon over James?
Tony is Anthony, just like Dave is David or Bill is William.
George was coined to hide the name Gideon. He wanted to be normal !!!
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
Not so - I said after the first post-Budget polls that the Labour vote was stable but it was odd the Tories weren't getting a little bounce from all the good coverage. That's exactly what we're seeing today. I also said that I thought it would settle by next week. We'll soon know, eH?
Do you not have ANYTHING to say on the latest indyref poll, from ICM, no less?
No 46, Yes 39.
Your party is facing the serious possibility of EXTINCTION in September. Forget about the 2015 GE, Labour - so reliant on Scotland - is possibly going to have its heartland ripped away - all those Scots MPs, all that ideological energy, half your history, from Keir Hardie to Gordon Brown: everything.
Tell us more about Labour's *resilience*.
lol. You are staring into the abyss.
The Expenses Express is on fire, and hurtling towards the cliff edge.
Not Gideon, George or Osborne, and the possessive is "Gideon's", not "Gideons" (wouldn't have pointed this out, but you do it twice). If you expressly support a party widely perceived as being made up of borderline-illiterate fruitcakes, you need - for the sake of that party - to pay attention to these details.
LOL, in my opinion this appears to be a textbook example of playing the man not the ball:
From Wikipedia: "George Gideon Oliver Osborne,[1] MP (born Gideon Oliver Osborne; xx xx 1971)....."
His real name is/was Gideon.
And as he chose to change it by deed poll you should do him the courtesy of calling him by the name that he wants to be called.
Why is he ashamed to use the name given by his parents ? Why is he so insecure ?
He didn't look insecure on Wednesday.
As I understand it he changed it at age 13, so it is a reasonable guess that he felt vulnerable to the comments of contemporaries at school. I speculate, but today we would categorise that as bullying, which I don't want to condone.
But, you tell me, doesn't "bullying" toughen up the old boy in a public school ? Was he a weakling then ?
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
Not so - I said after the first post-Budget polls that the Labour vote was stable but it was odd the Tories weren't getting a little bounce from all the good coverage. That's exactly what we're seeing today. I also said that I thought it would settle by next week. We'll soon know, eH?
Do you not have ANYTHING to say on the latest indyref poll, from ICM, no less?
No 46, Yes 39.
Your party is facing the serious possibility of EXTINCTION in September. Forget about the 2015 GE, Labour - so reliant on Scotland - is possibly going to have its heartland ripped away - all those Scots MPs, all that ideological energy, half your history, from Keir Hardie to Gordon Brown: everything.
Tell us more about Labour's *resilience*.
lol. You are staring into the abyss.
No will win 60 - 40.
As a constant commentator that Yes will win, 60 - 40 is in the no chance saloon.
I hate to agree with the cyber nats, but they are right, we southerners are out of sync with the way the voters will react in the referendum. Yes will win, 55 - 45 +/- 3%
Mr. Lilburne, surely he'd be the first Arthur in properly recorded history?
True though Arthur Prince of Wales d 1503 ( or 1504?) elder brother of Henry VIII got close to the throne.
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
He is "Arthos the Bear" in Rosemary Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" which I'm reading at the moment.
"He glutted the ravens, although he was no Arthur". Nennius, I think. The only close-to-contemporary mention of him in the annals. No substance, I'm afraid.
Indeed, indeed, but apparently the archeology says the Anglo Saxons rebelled in the 440's, swept all before them for 50 odd years, created control of what is now southern and eastern England for themselves and then rather inexplicably got nowhere from about 490 - 550 odd. If Arthur existed the late 5th century " check " is his moment,
Assuming it does... we could be looking for Vortigern or Ambrosius Aurelianus rather than Arthur.
And in any case I think the racial British vs Anglo Saxons meme is a bit simplistic, I suspect in the late C5 the Saes were continuing to behave as foederati, propping up local Welsh kingdoms.
Sure. All is fog, and it was probably a lot more blurred as you say than it seems to us. El Cid in 11th century Spain crossed sides I think a few times in a roughly comparable situation.
Comments
Look at the update at the top of the thread.. Labour are crapping themselves, brought about by overconfidence.
On fees, if the default rate on £3k a year has shot up to 45%, just imagine what it's going to be when the ching is £9k a year.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5524916/poll-says-brits-dont-trust-cameron-to-get-better-deal-in-eu.html
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Scotland on Sunday front page "Double blow for UK in new independence poll" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers #indyref pic.twitter.com/stXQAf8dZD
It looks like the yes campaign closing the gap :-)
I have just been on the line to Kirill I of Moscow, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'.
Kiri has agreed to allow a memorial service to be held for Basil in the eponymous Cathedral at the river Moskva end of Red Square.
He has even gracefully agreed to allow a Crimea Liberation type firework display to follow our farewell to the little nutter.
The things I do on your behalf, 'pouter.
Here is a small glimpse of the upcoming festivities: http://bit.ly/NE3dCY
And if you want to practice singing along, here is "Вечная память" (Memory Eternal!) the final verse of the Russian Orthodox Liturgy for Departed Souls.
Deacon: In a blessed falling asleep, grant, O Lord, eternal rest unto Thy departed servant Basil and make his/her memory to be eternal!
Choir: Memory eternal! Memory eternal! Memory eternal!
Note, 'pouter, if you wish to play a prominent role in the sending off of your greatest friend, you will have to learn how to sing deeper than any Bee Gee,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-kpytNA-0
That's right, laugh it off but the reality is very much against Miliband. His reply to the budget was a hopeless response full of nothing. No wonder the troops aren't happy.
When the Israelite men were assembled, God told Gideon that there were too many, that they would claim the victory as their own, instead of giving God the glory. So He ordered Gideon to send home every man who was afraid. Immediately, 22,000 men returned home, leaving only 10,000 remaining. God had Gideon further test their readiness and thinned the army down to 300 men. That night, Gideon gave each man a trumpet, a torch and a clay jar. They surrounded the enemy camp, with each torch hidden inside the jar. At Gideon's signal, every man blew his trumpet and broke his jar. The confused Midianites turned on one another, with the survivors fleeing the camp. Gideon and his courageous 300 men chased the escapees and cut off their retreat. The victory was the Lord's. Israel then had quietness for 40 years for the remainder of Gideon's life.
Once the Israelites were delivered from the oppression of the Midianites, they begged Gideon to be their king, but he refused. “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.” (8:23) His desire was for the Israelites to turn to God, their true King. For his valiant obedience and heart of humility, Gideon is in the superstar circle, mentioned in the Hall of Fame of Faith in Hebrews 11. He did not seek self-glorification, but rather the glorification of God. For this, Gideon was a true hero.
-Ground operations are important.
-A lead of 1% - or whatever - it might be, call it 3 or 4% - is pretty low for an opposition party with a year to go before an election, is it not? Low for a party to win from, I would think.
Also of course - Leads don't just drift in and out, they also trend.
As it happens, three out of the last four Labour Prime Ministers have had similar naming conventions.
Now you might also think that Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown are also c**ts, but I doubt it.
So I am trying to work out why you think it is completely out of order to give up the name Gideon, but not Leonard, nor James.
'Surely 35-34 is the same as 34-35 within the MOE?'
Only if its Labour on 34.
'That's right, laugh it off but the reality is very much against Miliband. His reply to the budget was a hopeless response full of nothing. No wonder the troops aren't happy.'
And the PBKinnocks were telling us Torybingo was going to be a game changer.
Not a bad salary, indeed not too far short of national median income. It is Labours fee repayments that hammer those on low incomes.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Rightly or wrongly Gideon is considered by some as a name well or possibly even exclusively associated with Aristocrats and Landed gentry.
Rightly or wrongly it is considered by some that someone seeking high office in the modern UK from the aristocratic or landed gentry classes would therefore find the name an impediment to that goal.
Rightly or wrongly the name change is seen as an act of political expediency.
Nothing to do with it having Jewish origins ,as do many British forenames including my own.
The cases of Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan are also not an exact comparison as they used their birth middle names which is not uncommon for people to do. Mr Osborne appears to have added an extra name which was not any of his birth names.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
That bingo poster. @grantshapps not the guilty man acorrding to @iainmartin1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10716758/Eyes-down-.-.-.-how-Osborne-dodged-blame-for-bingo-gaffe.html
This is all very well, Dr. Sox, but isn't the more pressing question who will replace Ed?
And what ancient scriptures should we instruct 'pouter to consult in determining the answer to this now urgent question?
As for King Arthur I've always been attracted by the theory that his lack of written attribution is down to the possibility that "Arthur" was a nom de Guerre, as Arth means bear in Welsh, meaning he could've been a Romano British leader known as " the Bear " just like Rommel was " the Desert Fox ". But I digress.......
My view is that under Charles II, England made huge strides towards being a world power, yes his dad was a pr1ck but the whole point of royalism is that you can't pick and choose. Charles is as good a name as George (when we remember that two Georges were German and one was mad).
I used it because I am in the habit of casually referring to him as Gideon as are many people know. If I say George or Osborne they might not immediately twig on to who I am on about. Say Gideon and people know immediately as there are currently no other Gideons in public life (that I know of)
I didn't quite appreciate how much it needled people in certain quaters!
Goodnight.
Another #IndyRef poll, this time from ICM, has YES getting closer
See pic.twitter.com/d2oikvtyuX
No - 46% - 3 Yes - 39% + 2
Having said that, 10/1 would still be value for the Tories to get most votes.
It doesn't help that the only reference in a Dark Age text is about 300 after he should've existed and says someone "was no Arthur", in the negative, but the nom de guerre theory fits at least.
Incidentally there's a pub in Penarth near Cardiff called the Bear's Head - which is what Penarth means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_polls
I say ! Gideon was behind this all along.
Last time, when the shit hit the fan, our brave Gideon put up Chloe Smith as a shield. This time, the hapless Michael Green pulled the short straw .
Will Con crossover precede Yes crossover? Cause and effect?
8th Jan 2009: Lab 29%, UKIP 7%
4th May 2009: Lab 28%, UKIP 9%
8th May 2009: Lab 25%, UKIP 7%
10th May 2009: Lab 25%, UKIP 6%
Of course UKIP actually got more votes than Labour on election day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)#Opinion_polls
The knives are out for Edward Milliband.
Perhaps now he can feel how his brother felt.
As I understand it he changed it at age 13, so it is a reasonable guess that he felt vulnerable to the comments of contemporaries at school. I speculate, but today we would categorise that as bullying, which I don't want to condone.
People choose to go by a variety of names, I can't understand the significance to be honest.
We could really dig deep and question why Paddy Ashdown preferred to be known by his Army nickname rather than Jeremy.
I really didn't realise that socio-onomastics was quite such a live topic on the Left.
And in any case I think the racial British vs Anglo Saxons meme is a bit simplistic, I suspect in the late C5 the Saes were continuing to behave as foederati, propping up local Welsh kingdoms.
The insecurity is on your part, resorting to peurile and vacuous attacks, rather than coherent argument.
George is riding high and in control. Labour are floundering. That is the current state of play.
George was coined to hide the name Gideon. He wanted to be normal !!!
I hate to agree with the cyber nats, but they are right, we southerners are out of sync with the way the voters will react in the referendum. Yes will win, 55 - 45 +/- 3%
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
ICM/Scotland on Sunday poll - Yes 45% (+2 on last month). No 55% (-2)
#indyref #tomorrowspaperstoday
via @KennyFarq pic.twitter.com/ApBRsV0tM6