politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » William Hill makes it 9-1 that GE2015 will lead to a second
Comments
-
Congratulations on doing a post that doesn't contain the phrase PB Hodges.RedRag1 said:"I know you're not very bright"...now now TSE, leave the personal insults by right wingers to the swivelled eyes on here. You are better than that....aren't you?
I live in Hope (actually I live in Dore, which isn't that from Hope) one day you'll post something worth reading.
0 -
NOTHING in the future is worth seeing the Labour party returned to Government in the UK unless of course like many of their supporters one lives in Tuscany or is sufficiently wealthy to be immune from the havoc they create.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.0 -
Oooh we're getting two Scottish polls tonight
An ICM for the Scotsman, and one for the Sunday Times (I'm assuming it's a Panelbase)0 -
They think they'd do even worse? They don't think Labour even intend to slow spending on benefits and the Tories do but it takes time.tim said:Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
But equally the question can be turned around - given the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards, why do PB Labouritess actually want the Tories out of power anyway?
Because there's more to each party than merely how much is being spent perhaps? So there is no surprise that despite the above, which I imagine will be disputed anyway, does not mean the alternative from Labour/Tories would be the same/better despite key similarities.
Plus, you know, tribalism.
Anyone else thinking that the Tories might not garner as many votes from people worried Labour will wreck any recovery in 2015 because if things look better people will think it doesn't matter as much who is in charge?
0 -
Depends if there's a Thatcher de nos jours in the current cabinet.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
Michael Gove? Justine Greening?0 -
From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
TSE - That must have hurtTheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
And Mrs T was campaigning for yes to Europe in the seventies...
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02439/THATCHERYESEUROPE_2439079c.jpgTheScreamingEagles said:
Depends if there's a Thatcher de nos jours in the current cabinet.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
Michael Gove? Justine Greening?0 -
Oh my god this is a stupid story:
A French designer is considering suing the UK government, claiming it used his work without payment on vans telling illegal immigrants to "go home".
Fabien Delage said he was in touch with the Home Office over the use of his font on the mobile billboards.
The Home Office said it was trying to contact the copyright owner to reach an agreement.
So many fonts in the world that I am sure the government is licensed to use, and it picks a foreign designed font it does not? How hard would it be to use a different one?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-240944350 -
Not really.RedRag1 said:
TSE - That must have hurtTheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
Lib Dems on 9% with The Sunday Times/YouGov poll0
-
ICM poll on Scottish Independence
Yes - 32%
No - 49%
Don't Know 19%
Result would be 60% No, 40 Yes if ref held this week0 -
As I said Tim, leave them to the Ed is crap line....long may it last.tim said:"His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education."
And on the ground in those seats the Tory Party is dying.
Cameron is doing massive damage to his own party and the PB Tories are utterly blind to it0 -
ICM poll shows result would be 55% no 45% yes if a no vote resulted in no extra powers for the Scottish Parliament0
-
That's not strictly true, with all respect (about the PB Tories being blind to it, or it being true - I have no idea if the party is dying in those seats) - many Tories on here have loudly bemoaned the damage done to the party by the Cameroon clique on many occasions. They probably do quibble about exactly how much damage and how irreversible it is though.tim said:"His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education."
And on the ground in those seats the Tory Party is dying.
Cameron is doing massive damage to his own party and the PB Tories are utterly blind to it0 -
1. Tories are spending more than Labour did - WRONG. In real terms (i.e. a like for like comparision) the Coalition government is spending less than Labour did.tim said:Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
2. Tories are spending more on benefits than Labour did - WRONG. See answer to 1. above.
3. Tories are busy trying to get a housing bubble going - WRONG See my posts on this subject with stats downthread.
Are you getting drunk on a £3.99 bottle of red remaindered from the Co-op?
0 -
@BBCNormanS: Team Miliband say no change in Labour stance on " bedroom tax/spare room subsidy". ie want to scrap it but no pledge.....(.yet)
@LabourLeft: Bedroom Tax repeal will be officially announced by Ed Miliband at 2.14pm on 24th September 2013.0 -
Bit surprised the Ashcroft poll shows Labour ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education since nobody seems to know what their policies are on these key areas.0
-
I'm glad the No lead is still mostly consistent, but I still worry come the crunch year leading to the referendum the nationalists are going to sneak this one. They have a clear strategy and intense committment to this, and I worry their certainty and fortitude will end up swaying undecideds, and will also turn out in higher numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:ICM poll on Scottish Independence
Yes - 32%
No - 49%
Don't Know 19%
Result would be 60% No, 40 Yes if ref held this week0 -
Ashcroft - good poll for Labour.
Starting to wonder if the polls will move significantly either way.
People seem pretty fixed in their views, where it matters.
2010 Liberal to Labour switchers look key, and solid.
0 -
Government spending is continuing to rise, as a quick google of your very own John Redwood will tell you.AveryLP said:
1. Tories are spending more than Labour did - WRONG. In real terms (i.e. a like for like comparision) the Coalition government is spending less than Labour did.tim said:Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
2. Tories are spending more on benefits than Labour did - WRONG. See answer to 1. above.
3. Tories are busy trying to get a housing bubble going - WRONG See my posts on this subject with stats downthread.
Are you getting drunk on a £3.99 bottle of red remaindered from the Co-op?
(Prepares for dull yellow box)
0 -
So the 6 point national lead widens to 14 points in the marginals.
Last time,it showed a narrowing in the marginals.So this is news.0 -
That's not too bad a poll for Yes - with a year to go?TheScreamingEagles said:ICM poll on Scottish Independence
Yes - 32%
No - 49%
Don't Know 19%
Result would be 60% No, 40 Yes if ref held this week0 -
And this is the man 33%* of the voting population currently think should have his finger on the nuclear button.Scott_P said:@BBCNormanS: Team Miliband say no change in Labour stance on " bedroom tax/spare room subsidy". ie want to scrap it but no pledge.....(.yet)
@LabourLeft: Bedroom Tax repeal will be officially announced by Ed Miliband at 2.14pm on 24th September 2013.
* = rough estimate0 -
@kle4 wrote :
"No problemo. I find it highly amusing we can now have heridatary peers who are MPs, a great topic.
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg."
..........................................................................................................................
Peers sitting in the Lords have always been known by their senior title even if it was not the one that afforded them their right to be there. This being the case with a number of Scottish and Irish titles that were senior to an English, British or UK peerage.
0 -
They fancy the arse off Michael Gove?tim said:Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
0 -
At the risk of being labelled a bit thick, but following a quick straw poll at my employment about the bedroom tax/spare room subsidy, I (having not really been following the policy all that closely) am struggling to see why it is regarded as so heinous by the left, and thus such a vote winner to target so strongly.
What I mean is, even if I don't agree with a party's approach on a policy, I like to think I can see why they choose to make their support/opposition so vocal on that particular issue, and I'm just struggling to see why the opposition to it (which I get) is given such a massive profile.
Are those more closely involved with politics and public opinion finding that this issue is a crunch issue that the government can be decisively made to look like the bad guy (the UN lady's comments I don't think have really factored into the perceptions), or are their figures showing the public by and large support it and it's just lefty politicos who are getting all in a fuss over it, in which case why stake so much on opposing it?0 -
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
"No problemo. I find it highly amusing we can now have heridatary peers who are MPs, a great topic.
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg."
..........................................................................................................................
Peers sitting in the Lords have always been known by their senior title even if it was not the one that afforded them their right to be there. This being the case with a number of Scottish and Irish titles that were senior to an English, British or UK peerage.
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
0 -
Here you go, Bobajob. All figures consistent with Redwood's blog.Bobajob said:
Government spending is continuing to rise, as a quick google of your very own John Redwood will tell you.AveryLP said:
...tim said:Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
(Prepares for dull yellow box)Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change
£ bn % | £ bn % | % %
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
2005-06 526.4 ˄ 6.26% | 624.7 ˄ 4.34% | 40.6 ˄ 0.74%
2006-07 553.0 ˄ 5.05% | 638.1 ˄ 2.15% | 40.4 ˅ (0.49%)
2007-08 586.6 ˄ 6.08% | 660.2 ˄ 3.46% | 40.5 ˄ 0.25%
2008-09 634.3 ˄ 8.13% | 694.4 ˄ 5.18% | 44.0 ˄ 8.64%
2009-10 672.5 ˄ 6.02% | 716.4 ˄ 3.17% | 47.0 ˄ 6.82%
| |
2005-10 ˄ 27.75% | ˄ 14.68% | ˄ 15.76%
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Osborne
2010-11 693.9 ˄ 3.18% | 720.5 ˄ 0.57% | 46.2 ˅ (1.70%)
2011-12 694.6 ˄ 0.10% | 705.1 ˅ (2.14%) | 45.0 ˅ (2.60%)
2012-13 675.3 ˅ (2.78%) | 675.3 ˅ (4.23%) | 43.1 ˅ (4.22%)
2013-14 720.0 ˄ 6.62% | 703.9 ˄ 4.24% | 45.1 ˄ 4.64%
2014-15 730.4 ˄ 1.44% | 700.7 ˅ (0.45%) | 44.1 ˅ (2.22%)
2010-15 ˄ 5.26% | ˅ (2.75%) | ˅ (4.55%)
----------------------------------------------------------------0 -
I agree with you.It doesn`t seem a great injustice.My only problem with it is it doesn`t save any money,so it could have been introduced for new tenants rather than existing ones.kle4 said:At the risk of being labelled a bit thick, but following a quick straw poll at my employment about the bedroom tax/spare room subsidy, I (having not really been following the policy all that closely) am struggling to see why it is regarded as so heinous by the left, and thus such a vote winner to target so strongly.
What I mean is, even if I don't agree with a party's approach on a policy, I like to think I can see why they choose to make their support/opposition so vocal on that particular issue, and I'm just struggling to see why the opposition to it (which I get) is given such a massive profile.
Are those more closely involved with politics and public opinion finding that this issue is a crunch issue that the government can be decisively made to look the bad guy (the UN lady's comments I don't think have really factored into the perceptions), or are their figures showing the public by and large support it and it's just lefty politicos who are getting all in a fuss over it, in which case why stake so much on opposing it?
If charges for plastic bags can wait till 2015,why not spare room subsidy?0 -
Brilliant. Thanks.AveryLP said:
Here you go, Bobajob. All figures consistent with Redwood's blog.Bobajob said:
Government spending is continuing to rise, as a quick google of your very own John Redwood will tell you.AveryLP said:
...tim said:Given that the Tories are spending more than Labour did, spending more on benefits than Labour did, and are busy tryng to get a housing bubble going not after fifteen years of growth but after three years of declining living standards , why do PB Tories actually want the Tories in power anyway?
(Prepares for dull yellow box)Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change
£ bn % | £ bn % | % %
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
2005-06 526.4 ˄ 6.26% | 624.7 ˄ 4.34% | 40.6 ˄ 0.74%
2006-07 553.0 ˄ 5.05% | 638.1 ˄ 2.15% | 40.4 ˅ (0.49%)
2007-08 586.6 ˄ 6.08% | 660.2 ˄ 3.46% | 40.5 ˄ 0.25%
2008-09 634.3 ˄ 8.13% | 694.4 ˄ 5.18% | 44.0 ˄ 8.64%
2009-10 672.5 ˄ 6.02% | 716.4 ˄ 3.17% | 47.0 ˄ 6.82%
| |
2005-10 ˄ 27.75% | ˄ 14.68% | ˄ 15.76%
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Osborne
2010-11 693.9 ˄ 3.18% | 720.5 ˄ 0.57% | 46.2 ˅ (1.70%)
2011-12 694.6 ˄ 0.10% | 705.1 ˅ (2.14%) | 45.0 ˅ (2.60%)
2012-13 675.3 ˅ (2.78%) | 675.3 ˅ (4.23%) | 43.1 ˅ (4.22%)
2013-14 720.0 ˄ 6.62% | 703.9 ˄ 4.24% | 45.1 ˄ 4.64%
2014-15 730.4 ˄ 1.44% | 700.7 ˅ (0.45%) | 44.1 ˅ (2.22%)
2010-15 ˄ 5.26% | ˅ (2.75%) | ˅ (4.55%)
----------------------------------------------------------------
0 -
A "double lord" is referred to in the House of Lords as "Oh lordy, lordy".kle4 said:
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
"No problemo. I find it highly amusing we can now have heridatary peers who are MPs, a great topic.
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg."
..........................................................................................................................
Peers sitting in the Lords have always been known by their senior title even if it was not the one that afforded them their right to be there. This being the case with a number of Scottish and Irish titles that were senior to an English, British or UK peerage.
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
0 -
Michael Ancrum is the Marquess or Marquis of Lothian, not Marquess Lothian. As far as I can recall the only Marquess without an "of" is Marquess Camden.AveryLP said:
A "double lord" is referred to in the House of Lords as "Oh lordy, lordy".kle4 said:
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
"No problemo. I find it highly amusing we can now have heridatary peers who are MPs, a great topic.
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg."
..........................................................................................................................
Peers sitting in the Lords have always been known by their senior title even if it was not the one that afforded them their right to be there. This being the case with a number of Scottish and Irish titles that were senior to an English, British or UK peerage.
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
The former Scots Tory MP Lord James Douglas Hamilton is both the Earl of Selkirk (which he disclaimed to remain an MP) and Baron Selkirk of Douglas as a Life Peer.
Most senior Hereditary Peers i.e. Earls, Marquesses and Dukes have numerous titles, in some cases more than a dozen. An eldest son is always known by his father's second title and his grandson by his third title if he/she has one since Scottish Peeresses can hold many hereditary titles.0 -
After the 1707 Act of Union Scottish peers elected 16 Representative Peers to enter the HoL. All English peers were members. This remained the case until 1963 when all Scottish peers became members.kle4 said:
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
"No problemo. I find it highly amusing we can now have heridatary peers who are MPs, a great topic.
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg."
..........................................................................................................................
Peers sitting in the Lords have always been known by their senior title even if it was not the one that afforded them their right to be there. This being the case with a number of Scottish and Irish titles that were senior to an English, British or UK peerage.
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
After the 1801 Act of Union Irish peers elected 26 representative peers to the HoL. The last elected Irish representative peer without another HoL eligible title died in 1961.
0 -
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?Easterross said:
Michael Ancrum is the Marquess or Marquis of Lothian, not Marquess Lothian. As far as I can recall the only Marquess without an "of" is Marquess Camden.AveryLP said:
A "double lord" is referred to in the House of Lords as "Oh lordy, lordy".kle4 said:
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
"
Particularly interesting is Michael Ancram, who acceded to his Peerage while an MP (the act permitting heriditary peers to be MPs then having been passed), and has since been made a life Peer as well, so sits in the HoL under that basis although still referred to by his senior peerage title. So he was born Michael Kerr but always called Michael Ancram after his courtesy title, technically is now the Marquess Lothain, but sits in the HoL as life Peer Baron Kerr despite being Hansared (can you use Hansard as a verb? Well I just did) as Lothian.
The other heriditary Peer formally in the Commons? Our old friend Douglas Hogg."
..........................................................................................................................
Peers sitting in the Lords have always been known by their senior title even if it was not the one that afforded them their right to be there. This being the case with a number of Scottish and Irish titles that were senior to an English, British or UK peerage.
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
The former Scots Tory MP Lord James Douglas Hamilton is both the Earl of Selkirk (which he disclaimed to remain an MP) and Baron Selkirk of Douglas as a Life Peer.
Most senior Hereditary Peers i.e. Earls, Marquesses and Dukes have numerous titles, in some cases more than a dozen. An eldest son is always known by his father's second title and his grandson by his third title if he/she has one since Scottish Peeresses can hold many hereditary titles.
0 -
What I didn't know until fairly recently was that Scotland (uniquely in the UK) has Baronetesses, where the Baronetage passes through the female line.Easterross said:
Michael Ancrum is the Marquess or Marquis of Lothian, not Marquess Lothian. As far as I can recall the only Marquess without an "of" is Marquess Camden.AveryLP said:
A "double lord" is referred to in the House of Lords as "Oh lordy, lordy".kle4 said:
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
....
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
The former Scots Tory MP Lord James Douglas Hamilton is both the Earl of Selkirk (which he disclaimed to remain an MP) and Baron Selkirk of Douglas as a Life Peer.
Most senior Hereditary Peers i.e. Earls, Marquesses and Dukes have numerous titles, in some cases more than a dozen. An eldest son is always known by his father's second title and his grandson by his third title if he/she has one since Scottish Peeresses can hold many hereditary titles.
I am not sure though whether any are still extant.
A bit far down the line and outside the old House of Lords, but if Scotland is looking for a future Chancellor of the Exchequer it may be a good place to start.
0 -
@LucyMPowell: “@MirrorPolitics: Labour to unveil plans to axe #BedroomTax 'within days' - exclusive by @vincentmoss http://t.co/skGkfcnTux” - good news
That's why they denied it so strenuously, earlier today...0 -
Like I said before, noble sir, I don't mind you quoting what I said so long as you don't quote it selectively (for example by quoting the statement without the reason, as you've just done). I appreciate that you need to be brief in a blog, so let me reduce it a single sentence: I don't think that we should force women giving evidence to do it wearing clothing that they think indecent in a courtroom full of men. That's a pretty short sentence - feel free to quote it if you like. Good night!SeanT said:
BTW Nick, as an act of personal decency (one you did NOT do for me) - before I take your remarks from one website and put them on another: I offer you a chance to finesse, or withdraw.
I am writing a Telegraph blog on Islamic dress. I MIGHT quote you on your belief that the niqab should be allowed in court in the witness box, even if worn by the accused. Do you stand by this?
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.
0 -
Nobody thought Thatcher would be a 'Thatcher' before she became one.TheScreamingEagles said:
Depends if there's a Thatcher de nos jours in the current cabinet.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
Michael Gove? Justine Greening?
So if there is it might be someone unexpected.
And there's no requirement for it to be a current cabinet member.
0 -
I dare say you would have said similar in 1974 and if you'd had your way it would have been the Conservative party which split and Labour which would have been ingovernment throughout the 1980s.Easterross said:
NOTHING in the future is worth seeing the Labour party returned to Government in the UK unless of course like many of their supporters one lives in Tuscany or is sufficiently wealthy to be immune from the havoc they create.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
Presumably you're also happy that when the UK economy hits the wall the blame falls upon the Conservatives and not Labour?
0 -
Oh surely not, didn't that really crappy movie make it seem plenty of people did? (in fairness I don't recall it's exact take, because it was such a crappy movie that I only saw it once and immediately forgot most of it)another_richard said:
Nobody thought Thatcher would be a 'Thatcher' before she became one.TheScreamingEagles said:
Depends if there's a Thatcher de nos jours in the current cabinet.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
Michael Gove? Justine Greening?
0 -
Well there's Boris.....another_richard said:
Nobody thought Thatcher would be a 'Thatcher' before she became one.TheScreamingEagles said:
Depends if there's a Thatcher de nos jours in the current cabinet.another_richard said:
But what would be the longer term consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:
For Tories in marginals - Would you vote for UKIP if it meant Ed as PMMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, can we look forward to questions regarding public funding for genetic research into land-walking superfish and the construction of a small fleet of Death Stars to keep the Argies and Spaniards in line?
Its rather like asking Conservative supporters if they would have preferred Turd Heath to have won the 1974 election.
At the time they would have done as they voted for him but in retrospect most would say that they're grateful for losing that election, getting rid of Turd and having the disaster of the late 1970s occur under a Labour government.
Likewise I'm sure that few Con to UKIP defectors actually want Labour back in power but many would consider it a price worth paying to get something better in future.
Michael Gove? Justine Greening?
So if there is it might be someone unexpected.
And there's no requirement for it to be a current cabinet member.0 -
@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
......................................................................................
Our Earls are broadly equivalent of a continental Count. Essentially Viscount derives from deputy or under Count and ranks accordingly in peerage law.
0 -
Well that's just needlessly confusing. I insist they be known as VisEarls, or possibly SousEarls instead.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
......................................................................................
Our Earls are broadly equivalent of a continental Count. Essentially Viscount derives from deputy or under Count and ranks accordingly in peerage law.
0 -
Still waiting for the first official declaration from Australia. I think it might be 20th September before we get any because that's when postal votes have to be received:
"0 of 150 House of Representatives seats have been declared."
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/0 -
Greens down to 9% with one of the latest German opinion polls, which I think is lower than they've been for years:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm0 -
Scottish peerage law is vastly different from English law.AveryLP said:
What I didn't know until fairly recently was that Scotland (uniquely in the UK) has Baronetesses, where the Baronetage passes through the female line.Easterross said:
Michael Ancrum is the Marquess or Marquis of Lothian, not Marquess Lothian. As far as I can recall the only Marquess without an "of" is Marquess Camden.AveryLP said:
A "double lord" is referred to in the House of Lords as "Oh lordy, lordy".kle4 said:
Fascinating stuff - I had assumed that someone's senior title had automatically been the one which afforded someone the right to sit as a Peer in the past, until the advent of heriditary peers being able to sit as MPs and therefore needing a Life Peerage to get back in to the HoL.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
....
Still, that makes them a double lord right? Should outrank the others on that basis
The former Scots Tory MP Lord James Douglas Hamilton is both the Earl of Selkirk (which he disclaimed to remain an MP) and Baron Selkirk of Douglas as a Life Peer.
Most senior Hereditary Peers i.e. Earls, Marquesses and Dukes have numerous titles, in some cases more than a dozen. An eldest son is always known by his father's second title and his grandson by his third title if he/she has one since Scottish Peeresses can hold many hereditary titles.
I am not sure though whether any are still extant.
A bit far down the line and outside the old House of Lords, but if Scotland is looking for a future Chancellor of the Exchequer it may be a good place to start.
Many Scottish titles of all ranks may be inherited by females if the male line fails or pass through the female line or fall into temporary abeyance that allows the title to be revived later. These special or shifting remainders have been common from the 12th Century.
0 -
The trick, RedRag1, is not minding that it hurts.RedRag1 said:
TSE - That must have hurtTheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
The ICM Indyref question was
As you may know, a referendum on independence will be held in Scotland on 18th September 2014. Voters will be asked, 'Should Scotland be an independent country'. Do you think you will vote 'Yes' or 'No'?"0 -
Cannot wait for tomorrow mornings article on tonight's polls. But obviously....I will have to.0
-
So the way justice is administered should be decided by the participants according to their own values. Nice to have it spelled out.NickPalmer said:
Like I said before, noble sir, I don't mind you quoting what I said so long as you don't quote it selectively (for example by quoting the statement without the reason, as you've just done). I appreciate that you need to be brief in a blog, so let me reduce it a single sentence: I don't think that we should force women giving evidence to do it wearing clothing that they think indecent in a courtroom full of men. That's a pretty short sentence - feel free to quote it if you like. Good night!SeanT said:
BTW Nick, as an act of personal decency (one you did NOT do for me) - before I take your remarks from one website and put them on another: I offer you a chance to finesse, or withdraw.
I am writing a Telegraph blog on Islamic dress. I MIGHT quote you on your belief that the niqab should be allowed in court in the witness box, even if worn by the accused. Do you stand by this?
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.0 -
Politically kinky!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The trick, RedRag1, is not minding that it hurts.RedRag1 said:
TSE - That must have hurtTheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
kle4 said:
It is primarily a matter of history as my noble colleague Jack W will confirm. In Scotland we tended only to use 2 ranks of Peer, Earls and Lords (equivalent to the English Baron because in Scotland Baron was not a peerage but the equivalent of an English Lord of the Manor). We occasionally had a Duke or two in Scotland, usually Royal princes or spouses. After 1707 we had a series of Scottish Dukedoms created. In England the title Viscount was often used as was that of Marquess. Ann Boleyn was created Marchioness of Pembroke in her own right.Easterross said:
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?AveryLP said:kle4 said:
Most senior Hereditary Peers i.e. Earls, Marquesses and Dukes have numerous titles, in some cases more than a dozen. An eldest son is always known by his father's second title and his grandson by his third title if he/she has one since Scottish Peeresses can hold many hereditary titles.
The early Earldoms in Scotland of which Sutherland in 1235 is the earliest extant one tended to be granted to men who either inherited or occupied the lands formerly held by the Mormaers of Scotland. I am descended from the Mormaers of Mar and Mormaers of Menteith among others. In both cases they became Earldoms.
Since Victorian times, the rank of Duke has been granted mostly to Royal princes. The rank of Marquess has often been granted to Viceroys and Governors-General. The rank of Earl was automatically granted to a Prime Minister (unless he declined as did Mrs T) and the most senior military officers. The rank of Viscount was granted to other military commanders and lesser colonial governors etc. It was also granted to a number of politicians and industrialists. Everyone else got a Barony or a Baronetcy, the most recent of whom was Sir Dennis Thatcher.0 -
If you enjoy "needlessly confusing" have a wander through Scottish peerage law - it's sure to give you a fit of the vapours after the first several thousand pages !!kle4 said:
Well that's just needlessly confusing. I insist they be known as VisEarls, or possibly SousEarls instead.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
......................................................................................
Our Earls are broadly equivalent of a continental Count. Essentially Viscount derives from deputy or under Count and ranks accordingly in peerage law.
0 -
There's only one Scottish Aristo that's worth talking about.JackW said:
If you enjoy "needlessly confusing" have a wander through Scottish peerage law - it's sure to give you a fit of the vapours after the first several thousand pages !!kle4 said:
Well that's just needlessly confusing. I insist they be known as VisEarls, or possibly SousEarls instead.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
......................................................................................
Our Earls are broadly equivalent of a continental Count. Essentially Viscount derives from deputy or under Count and ranks accordingly in peerage law.0 -
The Chancellor's name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne in that order.0
-
It is not the absolute TME:GDP ratio which counts tim, but the movement over the term of office.tim said:Even on Averys preferred and filtered measures the Tories will spend more as a percentage of GDP every year for five years than Labour did in every year except for one at the depth of the worldwide recession.
And Osborne will spend more every year than Brown did as Chancellor as a percentage of GDP, a spending level the PB Tories always say was reckless
George inherited a ratio of 47.0% and will have reduced it to 44.1% over his term (more probably but let's not count our chickens).
By contrast, Gordon and Alistair inherited a ratio of 40.5% and increased it to 47.0% between 2005 and 2010.
It is not completely unknown though for a Labour government to reduce the ratio. Between 1997 and 2001, adopting Ken Clarke's expenditure plans and riding on the back of peak North Sea outputs, Gordon managed to reduce the ratio from 38.0% to 34.6%. An excellent example of fiscal constraint.
The problem was that Tony let the keys to No 10's attic out of sight during the post 2001 GE victory celebrations and Mrs Rochester escaped. Tone's reward was Gordon increasing spending in the first year of his second term by 13.97% in nominal terms and 11.81% in real terms: 30.65% and 23.76% over the four year term. The ratio climbed back up from 34.6% right up to 40.5% thereby undoing completely all the good work of the first term.
So this argument about ratios and percentages of GDP is dangerous for Labour, tim. When you have a raging lunatic in the family it is sometimes best not to talk about it in public.
0 -
Surely two ?!?TheScreamingEagles said:
There's only one Scottish Aristo that's worth talking about.JackW said:
If you enjoy "needlessly confusing" have a wander through Scottish peerage law - it's sure to give you a fit of the vapours after the first several thousand pages !!kle4 said:
Well that's just needlessly confusing. I insist they be known as VisEarls, or possibly SousEarls instead.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
......................................................................................
Our Earls are broadly equivalent of a continental Count. Essentially Viscount derives from deputy or under Count and ranks accordingly in peerage law.
Chortles ....
And Good Night All ....
0 -
I'm fairly certain it's that way precisely to make sure people of my order not understand it, so I think I'm better off relying on your learned advice than having a crack at deciphering it myself!JackW said:
If you enjoy "needlessly confusing" have a wander through Scottish peerage law - it's sure to give you a fit of the vapours after the first several thousand pages !!kle4 said:
Well that's just needlessly confusing. I insist they be known as VisEarls, or possibly SousEarls instead.JackW said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
......................................................................................
Our Earls are broadly equivalent of a continental Count. Essentially Viscount derives from deputy or under Count and ranks accordingly in peerage law.
0 -
But we do have countesses and counties.kle4 said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
When you have two words for the same thing, it is usually because two separate peoples were in close proximity. So, earls and counts, shires and counties, sheriffs and, well, nothing.
I blame the (Norman) French.0 -
YouGov Leader ratings (changes from last week)
Cameron - 12 (+3)
Miliband -46 (nc)
Clegg -50 (+3)0 -
Neither here nor there: I assume most people will answer as if they were voting tomorrow, but it would be simpler to nowcast rather than forecast.TheScreamingEagles said:The ICM Indyref question was
As you may know, a referendum on independence will be held in Scotland on 18th September 2014. Voters will be asked, 'Should Scotland be an independent country'. Do you think you will vote 'Yes' or 'No'?"0 -
Ooh, Miliband's looking dangerously close to slipping behind Clegg, which... will probably have no impact if he keeps his nerve, but would still be a bit embarrasing given the long running narrative of Clegg being a joke (even if the Tory press is giving him a pass this week)TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov Leader ratings (changes from last week)
Cameron - 12 (+3)
Miliband -46 (nc)
Clegg -50 (+3)0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYNElueJj_wRedRag1 said:
Politically kinky!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The trick, RedRag1, is not minding that it hurts.RedRag1 said:
TSE - That must have hurtTheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
The Sunday Times are doing their very naughty thing of spreading the yougov poll over about 20 different articles, so it is taking a while to piece all together.0
-
Jonathan made that point the other day when the Ipsos-Mori polling came out.kle4 said:
Ooh, Miliband's looking dangerously close to slipping behind Clegg, which... will probably have no impact if he keeps his nerve, but would still be a bit embarrasing given the long running narrative of Clegg being a joke (even if the Tory press is giving him a pass this week)TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov Leader ratings (changes from last week)
Cameron - 12 (+3)
Miliband -46 (nc)
Clegg -50 (+3)0 -
Sunday Times
NICK CLEGG has ordered his Liberal Democrat ministers to expose secret battles with coalition colleagues to demonstrate the power Lib Dems wield behind closed doors.
Clegg has decided his party should no longer hide policy disputes with Conservatives because keeping quiet does not win votes.
It comes as his party languishes on just nine points in the polls, putting it in fourth place behind UKIP.
Private polling by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that voters do not know what difference the party is making in government, prompting Clegg’s decision to end the “consensual” approach.
Ed Davey, the energy secretary, will use his keynote speech to the Liberal Democrat party conference today to reveal “trench warfare” with Conservative colleagues over the green agenda.0 -
LOL!!!!!Sunil_Prasannan said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYNElueJj_wRedRag1 said:
Politically kinky!Sunil_Prasannan said:
The trick, RedRag1, is not minding that it hurts.RedRag1 said:
TSE - That must have hurtTheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
The Conservatives’ growing complacency that Miliband is unelectable receives a knock today from Lord Ashcroft, the indefatigable Cameron-sceptic Tory. His latest poll finds Labour with a comfortable 14-point lead in the top 32 closest Conservative-Labour marginals, and ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education. So, says Ashcroft, “Labour remains on course for an overall majority”.0 -
I thought you like religious people!SeanT said:
No. You said that you see no reason why the ACCUSED - not just a witness - should not wear a niqab, if she chose, and if she felt it consonant with her religious beliefs. Even if this makes the jury's job harder.NickPalmer said:
Like I said before, noble sir, I don't mind you quoting what I said so long as you don't quote it selectively (for example by quoting the statement without the reason, as you've just done). I appreciate that you need to be brief in a blog, so let me reduce it a single sentence: I don't think that we should force women giving evidence to do it wearing clothing that they think indecent in a courtroom full of men. That's a pretty short sentence - feel free to quote it if you like. Good night!SeanT said:
BTW Nick, as an act of personal decency (one you did NOT do for me) - before I take your remarks from one website and put them on another: I offer you a chance to finesse, or withdraw.
I am writing a Telegraph blog on Islamic dress. I MIGHT quote you on your belief that the niqab should be allowed in court in the witness box, even if worn by the accused. Do you stand by this?
Because I am noble and nice I firstly offer you the chance to *refine* your attitude.
Ergo, you will happily accommodate sharia law and the worst elements of misogynistic Islam even if it perverts British justice. This is what you believe.
As it happens I probably won't quote you, as your moral cowardice is so craven it might actively distract from my point, and people will think I am joking. You prove my case TOO WELL.0 -
tim would probably call him "Bart" thinking it was his last name.Easterross said:The Chancellor's name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne in that order.
0 -
I was about to ask.....does anybody know the headline figure?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times are doing their very naughty thing of spreading the yougov poll over about 20 different articles, so it is taking a while to piece all together.
0 -
All I know is the Lib Dems are in 4th place with 9%, behind UKIPRedRag1 said:
I was about to ask.....does anybody know the headline figure?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times are doing their very naughty thing of spreading the yougov poll over about 20 different articles, so it is taking a while to piece all together.
0 -
Gideon was an interesting fellow. The name means mighty warrior or destroyer, and Gideon destroyed his enemies much larger army via cunning strategy. He brought peace to the land and refused to be made king. It is no name to be embarrassed about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon
But name changes are not unusual. Adolph Miliband changed his to Ralph, for example.Easterross said:The Chancellor's name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne in that order.
0 -
Sorry to laugh, but that sounds quite funny......it's like they are leaving snippets of information across their website to drive up page hits.TheScreamingEagles said:
All I know is the Lib Dems are in 4th place with 9%, behind UKIPRedRag1 said:
I was about to ask.....does anybody know the headline figure?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times are doing their very naughty thing of spreading the yougov poll over about 20 different articles, so it is taking a while to piece all together.
0 -
In Scotland it was our Flemish ancestors who accompanied Malcolm III Canmore and his son David I who created most of what we still recognise to this day. As Jack implied, if you are suffering from insomnia, try studying the Scottish peerage.Ninoinoz said:
But we do have countesses and counties.kle4 said:@kle4 wrote :
Can you answer why we have Viscounts when we don't have Counts, given we use Earl instead?
When you have two words for the same thing, it is usually because two separate peoples were in close proximity. So, earls and counts, shires and counties, sheriffs and, well, nothing.
I blame the (Norman) French.0 -
They do it once every couple of months, normally each week they have a polling round up piece, which contains all the YouGov info.RedRag1 said:
Sorry to laugh, but that sounds quite funny......it's like they are leaving snippets of information across their website to drive up page hits.TheScreamingEagles said:
All I know is the Lib Dems are in 4th place with 9%, behind UKIPRedRag1 said:
I was about to ask.....does anybody know the headline figure?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times are doing their very naughty thing of spreading the yougov poll over about 20 different articles, so it is taking a while to piece all together.
Is a pain for myself and OGH0 -
Clegg-Miliband crossover approaching!TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov Leader ratings (changes from last week)
Cameron - 12 (+3)
Miliband -46 (nc)
Clegg -50 (+3)
Next week?
It's in the bag.
0 -
George Osborne will be the 18th Baronet in his line if he outlives his father. A very distinguished political lineage in Ireland.0
-
Can you imagine The Scum doing the same with theirs. The UKIP percentage hanging off the nipple of Emma from Swansea on page three, the Tory percentage on the TV page, The Labour percentage in the horoscope between Leo and Virgo and Templegate giving the Lib Dem percentage...or maybe not.TheScreamingEagles said:
They do it once every couple of months, normally each week they have a polling round up piece, which contains all the YouGov info.RedRag1 said:
Sorry to laugh, but that sounds quite funny......it's like they are leaving snippets of information across their website to drive up page hits.TheScreamingEagles said:
All I know is the Lib Dems are in 4th place with 9%, behind UKIPRedRag1 said:
I was about to ask.....does anybody know the headline figure?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times are doing their very naughty thing of spreading the yougov poll over about 20 different articles, so it is taking a while to piece all together.
Is a pain for myself and OGH0 -
Easterross: Michael Ancrum is the Marquess or Marquis of Lothian, not Marquess Lothian. As far as I can recall the only Marquess without an "of" is Marquess Camden.
I think the Marquis Townsend and the Marquis Conyngham, the latter in the Irish peerage, also fall into the same category.
0 -
Brilliant, Dr. Sox!foxinsoxuk said:Gideon was an interesting fellow. The name means mighty warrior or destroyer, and Gideon destroyed his enemies much larger army via cunning strategy. He brought peace to the land and refused to be made king. It is no name to be embarrassed about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon
But name changes are not unusual. Adolph Miliband changed his to Ralph, for example.Easterross said:The Chancellor's name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne in that order.
0 -
The Sunday Telegraph reports that Ian Katz former Guardian journalist (what else pray?), barely into his second week in his new job as the new editor of BBC Two’s Newsnight, apologised in writing to the Labour party after he tweeted that Rachel Reeves, shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was “boring snoring” on Monday’s programme.0
-
ok its midnight so are we getting the polling numbers or not?0
-
I've posted some of them belowEasterross said:ok its midnight so are we getting the polling numbers or not?
0 -
Lord Ashcroft has posted the details of his poll here
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/09/labour-still-on-course-in-the-marginals-but-its-not-over-yet/0 -
Some extreme forms of Islam may regard it as immodest for a women to appear in a courtroom at all, even if she's completely covered. What would we do in that case?0
-
In theory any MP with the ability to form a government could offer to do it - no need to be Leader of the Opposition at the time of the election. (The Queen has to send for them not the other way around, but she'd send for whoever she heard could do it.) IIUC you have to be an MP (or Lord) so it wouldn't be Miliband. I'm not sure exactly what the Labour rules say in that situation, but I'd have thought the shadow cabinet / NEC would pick somebody temporary to negotiate at least a short-term agreement with the LibDems, then the Queen would send for that person.JosiasJessop said:
Playing along with this a little, although it won't happen.TheScreamingEagles said:Given Ed Miliband's toxicity (more disliked than the Tory party) and his own party supporters thinking he's crap.....
Clarkson threatens to run against Miliband at election
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09-14/clarkson-threatens-to-run-against-miliband-at-election/
Say the following conditions occurred:
1) Labour do not get a majority, but get enough votes to form a minority government.
2) Miliband loses his seat (again, unlikely).
Who would be in charge? Could Miliband still go to the Queen even if he has been booted out by his electorate? Or would someone else have the authority to go?
Either way, Cameron could probably stay on until they'd sorted something out, so they could take a couple of weeks over it if that's what they needed.0 -
Well quite.steve_garner said:
Bit surprised the Ashcroft poll shows Labour ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education since nobody seems to know what their policies are on these key areas.
0 -
and Lord Ashcroft's piece for conhome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/09/from-lordashcroft-why-ukips-performance-in-conservative-labour-marginals-threatens-to-put-miliband-i.html0 -
Scotland on Sunday's piece on their ICM poll
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-danger-for-no-camp-1-30941550 -
For anyone wishing to throw their money away back Ms Reeves to become Labour's next leader, she is best-priced at 16/1 (various bookies).peter_from_putney said:The Sunday Telegraph reports that Ian Katz former Guardian journalist (what else pray?), barely into his second week in his new job as the new editor of BBC Two’s Newsnight, apologised in writing to the Labour party after he tweeted that Rachel Reeves, shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was “boring snoring” on Monday’s programme.
0 -
But see Ashcoft commentary:fitalass said:Well quite.
steve_garner said:Bit surprised the Ashcroft poll shows Labour ahead on the economy, jobs, the NHS and education since nobody seems to know what their policies are on these key areas.
Cameron’s 20-point lead as best Prime Minister, the majority saying Britain is heading in the right direction, and the fact that on this battleground the Conservatives are ahead on the economy and jobs as well as the deficit, immigration, welfare, Europe and crime should also provide reassurance.0 -
There have been 14 polls this month so far according to Wikipedia.
The average Labour lead is 5%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Poll_results0 -
TSE not particularly interested in anything other than party numbers so off to bed.0
-
That big?Andy_JS said:There have been 14 polls this month so far according to Wikipedia.
The average Labour lead is 5%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Poll_results
0 -
Holy Dog Poop - From The Sunday Times
ED MILIBAND is bracing himself for damaging revelations about “dirty tricks” and “bungling” when he was a key member of Gordon Brown’s government.
A long-awaited book by Brown’s former communications chief Damian McBride — called “McPoison” by his enemies — is expected to embarrass Miliband and his frontbench team.
It will lift the lid on their role in disasters of the Labour era such as the “election that never was” in 2007 and the feuding between Brown and Tony Blair, his predecessor.
The publication of Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin on September 24 threatens to overshadow next week’s Labour conference.0 -
With all due respect to Lord A, has this kind of marginal seat polling EVER produced anything like accurate results...even within a few weeks of a general election let alone 18 months from one?!0
-
IMO a 5% Labour lead at this stage almost certainly means a hung parliament in 2015. Ed needed to be much further ahead with 20 months to go.AveryLP said:
That big?Andy_JS said:There have been 14 polls this month so far according to Wikipedia.
The average Labour lead is 5%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Poll_results0 -
Damian McBride on Ed Miliband (and I'm sure Sunil and SeanT have made this comparison as well)
“His voice and tone reminded me eerily of Hal the computer in the film 2001,”0
