politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This makes me glad I’m laying Boris in the race to be next Tor

tyson said:

Roger said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Paristonda said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Gotta be JRM. No one on that list cuts it; Thornberry, Benn, Cooper look much more prime ministerial to me, and the tories are extraordinarily lucky that the lunatics have taken over the Labour asylum, and are due to consolidate their position at party conference.

Thornberry has only 1 black mark next to her name with that whole Rotherham affair. Otherwise, she has actually been quite impressive - she generally performs well on TV, she's clearly of the left but not a hard left marxist type. She's clearly a bit of a champagne socialist, but her background is not. To my knowledge no history of IRA remarks or similar.

If the Corbynistas do consolidate control, I think she would be in with a shot for next leader

She is very good on TV, and the chav flag tweet was really, really not the career-annihilating blunder it was portrayed as.

It was for Miliband. It showed him to be fake.

ET is very comfortable in her own shoes too.

And I liked her taking the piss out of the guy who decked his house out like Nick Griffin's bunker.

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416

Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.

Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?

It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.

Yes I was thinking that.
Maybe JRM is hoping to set off a landmark court case against child services on the rights of parents to name their children.

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416

Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.

Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?

It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.

Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.

The Primus, Secundus etc route was one taken by the rulers in the Codex Alera world. It's a fantasy by Jim Butcher, 5 or 6 parts, and really rather good. It has certain historical aspects but is almost entirely fantastical.

I reviewed the first part here:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/review-furies-of-calderon-codex-alera-1.html

Reminds me, when time/money permits, to try a Witcher book.

https://twitter.com/thedailymash/status/882524720930967552

Morris_Dancer said:

The Primus, Secundus etc route was one taken by the rulers in the Codex Alera world. It's a fantasy by Jim Butcher, 5 or 6 parts, and really rather good. It has certain historical aspects but is almost entirely fantastical.

I reviewed the first part here:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/review-furies-of-calderon-codex-alera-1.html

Reminds me, when time/money permits, to try a Witcher book.

I am a big Dresden Files fan. Will have to check out Butcher's other works.

On public sector pay, why can't the government cut it by 1% for those earning £50,000 or more and raise it by 2% for those below it (and cut MP pay as well).

Yes the government would still get bad headlines becasuse doctors and headteachers earn that much but who cares, it is the right thing to do as many lower paid workers have been suffering deep real terms wage cuts.

There are ways to raise the pay cap for poorer public sector workers whilst still being fiscally responsible.

Ruth wins by a landslide... If she can get a Parliamentary seat by 2019....

nunu said:

On public sector pay, why can't the government cut it by 1% for those earning £50,000 or more and raise it by 2% for those below it (and cut MP pay as well).

Yes the government would still get bad headlines becasuse doctors and headteachers earn that much but who cares, it is the right thing to do as many lower paid workers have been suffering deep real terms wage cuts.

There are ways to raise the pay cap for poorer public sector workers whilst still being fiscally responsible.

Mathematically that's a strange idea... Some people would end up overtaking others.

It also would cost almost as much as raising pay for everyone by 2%.
Also the pay differential between public and private is probably greatest for high incomes...

rkrkrk said:

dyedwoolie said:

Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.

Is it really that high?
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?

It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.

The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).

rkrkrk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Does this table tell us much more than the make-up of the readership of Conservative Home? It always was dominated by the wilder-eyed Leavers.

Yes Con Homes 2005 Tory leadership poll not only predicted Cameron would beat Davis but got his margin of victory almost spot on too. So today's poll showing Davis 1st, Boris 2nd and Patel 3rd of Tory runners and riders is a good marker of the views of the Tory membership

In which case is Patel worth a bet?

I think she is pretty piss poor, but then I always thought that of May. I bet against May last time round because I expected her to flop.

With rare exceptions, my dislike of a Tory frontbencher is inversely related to their chance of winning, as such I have put afew quid on Priti.

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

dyedwoolie said:

Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.

Is it really that high?
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?

It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.

The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).

Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.

Good question, I don't know if they are considered.

However, in terms of repayments now vs 5 years ago, they won't be different. It is a percentage of your salary, not related to how much you owe. And most people are paying them off so slowly that £20k or £50k at 3% or 6% interest rate, they will still be making payments in late 20 / early 30s when most people come to buy a home.

The real difference is the percentage of people actually clearing that debt by the cut off date vs the government having to clear it for them.

Paristonda said:

fitalass said:

Paristonda said:

fitalass said:

SNIP

SNIP

The current voting system at Holyrood is not set up to deliver a majority, but as you may have noticed, the Scottish Conservatives under Ruth Davidson overtook the Scottish Labour party as the main Opposition at Holyrood. They also performed far better than the Scottish Labour party did in the last GE despite the Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn's campaigns. Blame the Scottish Conservative result on the Ruth Davidson! You don't achieve that kind of level of political success without garnering the tactical votes of Scottish Labour voters in much the same way that the SNP used to be able to collect Tory votes..

Yes but tactical voting will only go so far in Holyrood due to the proportional aspect. So you need the SNP to fall back directly, in order to make any other administration viable. Those SNP voters then have to directly transfer to the unionist parties. Considering the increase in SNP has largely been at the expense of Slab, and considering that Slab no longer looks dead in Scotland even if the Tories performed better, it is more likely that a larger share of SNP votes would return to a resurgent Labour party than move to the Conservatives (like how ex-kippers returned to Lab rather than going on to Con).

Scon have room to increase but are probably nearing their ceiling as long as the Labour party looks resurgent. the SNP seem to be flailing post-election, so there is a large well of potential SNP voters for them to have 'return home'.

I think a minority SNP administration in 2021 is most likely, but Kezia as FM is more likely than Ruth - SNP fallback will lead to Slab leapfrogging Scon.

Well here is the thing, I don't think there is a designated 'ceiling' for the Scottish Conservatives under Ruth Davidson while she outperforms the other Scottish party leaders in Scotland.

If Kezia Dugdale was the answer to both Scottish Labour's problems and also a vehicle for the anti SNP vote, it would have materilised in the Holyrood elections last year or during the local elections and the GE just a few weeks ago. It didn't, and all because neither Kezia Dugdale or her party are now the natural home of the pro Union/anti SNP vote central ground vote in Scotland.

And with Scotland now lagging behind the UK in both economic and public sector performance, a perfect political storm is brewing that is going to propel the Scottish Conservatives into power at Holyrood. To put it into perspective, a terrible May GE campaign vs a socialist Corbyn manifesto utopia protest vote didn't shift more than six seats in a country that is really fed up with the SNP at Holryood or the constant chatter about another Indy Ref on the back of Brexit!

Steve Baker is a strong media communicator. One to watch for the future, given he is also a strong parliamentary performer.

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

dyedwoolie said:

Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.

Is it really that high?
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?

It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.

The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).

Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.

It is, but the as the repayments are a percentage of income, not based on the overall balance of debt left (unlike a normal loan), then the amount of the loan inself is irrevelent, it just reduces your Net Pay, like Income Tax or National insurance does.

Slackbladder said:

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

dyedwoolie said:

Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.

Is it really that high?
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?

It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.

The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).

Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.

It is, but the as the repayments are a percentage of income, not based on the overall balance of debt left (unlike a normal loan), then the amount of the loan inself is irrevelent, it just reduces your Net Pay, like Income Tax or National insurance does.

One thing that it does do is that by middled aged, when most people have kids. Under previous systems / rates, more people had cleared the loan and that extra tax rate had gone away meaning that they would have more income to pay for the kids / home improvements etc.

Now, in your 20s that debt builds up fairly significantly as you are hardly denting it given the interest rate / graduate salary. Then, by the time you earn decent money you will still be paying it off, meaning that the majority of people will be hit by that extra 7% tax rate for most of their working lives. But then under a graduate tax scheme or jezza's free for all, people will be paying extra tax one way or another.

The unpalatable answer is really less full time students, more flexible part time higher education and on the job learning...but parents won't accept that little Johnny isn't bright enough to one of the 25-30% that go full time (rather than the 50% now) and its elitist etc etc etc.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Slackbladder said:

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

dyedwoolie said:

Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.

Is it really that high?
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?

It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.

The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).

Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.

It is, but the as the repayments are a percentage of income, not based on the overall balance of debt left (unlike a normal loan), then the amount of the loan inself is irrevelent, it just reduces your Net Pay, like Income Tax or National insurance does.

One thing that it does do is that by middled aged, when most people have kids. Under previous systems / rates, more people had cleared the loan and that extra tax rate had gone away meaning that they would have more income to pay for the kids / home improvements etc.

Now, in your 20s that debt builds up fairly significantly as you are hardly denting it given the interest rate / graduate salary. Then, by the time you earn decent money you will still be paying it off, meaning that the majority of people will be hit by that extra 7% tax rate for most of their working lives. But then under a graduate tax scheme or jezza's free for all, people will be paying extra tax one way or another.

Indeed. The system isn't great, but it kind of works, in 95% of the situation, it's exactly the same as a graduate tax.

Slackbladder said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Slackbladder said:

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rkrkrk said:

dyedwoolie said:

Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.

Is it really that high?
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?

It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.

The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).

Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.

It is, but the as the repayments are a percentage of income, not based on the overall balance of debt left (unlike a normal loan), then the amount of the loan inself is irrevelent, it just reduces your Net Pay, like Income Tax or National insurance does.

One thing that it does do is that by middled aged, when most people have kids. Under previous systems / rates, more people had cleared the loan and that extra tax rate had gone away meaning that they would have more income to pay for the kids / home improvements etc.

Now, in your 20s that debt builds up fairly significantly as you are hardly denting it given the interest rate / graduate salary. Then, by the time you earn decent money you will still be paying it off, meaning that the majority of people will be hit by that extra 7% tax rate for most of their working lives. But then under a graduate tax scheme or jezza's free for all, people will be paying extra tax one way or another.

Indeed. The system isn't great, but it kind of works, in 95% of the situation, it's exactly the same as a graduate tax.

Well there are various changes I would make. One of the big issues that the change in the system didn't result in, was

a) a proper market i.e there is just no way that a degree from Oxford is worth the same as Oxford Brookes

b) different subjects cost a vastly different amount to put on e.g Chemistry at a top uni costs about £15k per student per year, media studies at a shit one £3k.

c) things like medicine has become eye wateringly expensive, despite them being very valuable to the nation.

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416

Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.

Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?

It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.

Yes I was thinking that.
Maybe JRM is hoping to set off a landmark court case against child services on the rights of parents to name their children.

He should go the whole Mogg, and change his own name by deed poll to Derisus Apsurdus.

For future offspring the names Caecilius, Cogidubnus and Lurcio remain available.

There's not much talent on either side. Its a dire problem. Its appalling that Michael Gove should come second in the ratings, and amazing that Tories should consider him an electoral asset. A 2019 election would mean that 70 year old Tory castoff David Davies would be facing 70 year hopeless and incompetent hard left ideologue Corbyn, moderated by 76 year old Vince Cable.

May doing well on PMQs - economy, economy, economy!

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

May doing well on PMQs - economy, economy, economy!

She is, too. Perhaps the GE disaster has been a wake up call.

Jezza sounding shrill.

He doesn't listen to the answers at all. His questions always seem tin-eared to the dialogue...

So back to normal. He is at the end of the day as thick as shit.

The thing is the cult (and the wider public) don't care. May could bury him every week and it won't dent his poll ratings.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

If I was on plan 2, I'd clear my o/s balance tommorow - but as I'm plan 1 I'd in theory pay off my mortgage first.
Plan 2 would have been long term alot more expensive for me.

I think it all depends on your situation and likely life earning etc. I can't remember the exact maths, but if you are in a career where you aren't going to be making much more than £30-40k a year for the rest of your life I don't think it is ever worth attempting to pay it off.

It will be higher than that these days, 60k or so.

Mortimer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

May doing well on PMQs - economy, economy, economy!

She is, too. Perhaps the GE disaster has been a wake up call.

Jezza sounding shrill.

He doesn't listen to the answers at all. His questions always seem tin-eared to the dialogue...

So back to normal. He is at the end of the day as thick as shit.

The thing is the cult (and the wider public) don't care. May could bury him every week and it won't dent his poll ratings.

Indeed. It is really quite scary.

To be fair, Hague used to give Blair a kicking most weeks and it didn't do him any favours. The difference was that Blair wasn't a total incompetent moron outside of the chamber.

For an alternative view:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/882559827993559041

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

May doing well on PMQs - economy, economy, economy!

She is, too. Perhaps the GE disaster has been a wake up call.

Jezza sounding shrill.

He doesn't listen to the answers at all. His questions always seem tin-eared to the dialogue...

So back to normal. He is at the end of the day as thick as shit.

The thing is the cult (and the wider public) don't care. May could bury him every week and it won't dent his poll ratings.

Bit of a discrepancy between you and Robert Preston then ?

Yorkcity said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

May doing well on PMQs - economy, economy, economy!

She is, too. Perhaps the GE disaster has been a wake up call.

Jezza sounding shrill.

He doesn't listen to the answers at all. His questions always seem tin-eared to the dialogue...

So back to normal. He is at the end of the day as thick as shit.

The thing is the cult (and the wider public) don't care. May could bury him every week and it won't dent his poll ratings.

Bit of a discrepancy between you and Robert Preston then ?

I didn't watch, I was commenting on somebody else observation. However, given how wrong Peston is on most things, I am glad I don't take his opinion on much.

AlastairMeeks said:

For an alternative view:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/882559827993559041

Amusing not only that people watching the same thing can have such different views... But that they can be so strongly held!

Mr. Urquhart, really not impressed with broadcast media lately. Sky's in love with the euro-sausage, and ITV have not been responsible or sensible over Grenfell Tower.

Yesterday, the imbecile reporting for ITV suggested that the response to Grenfell called into question who should run the country (or words to that effect). It was not an edifying moment of journalism.

Nice SNP-beating handed out from TM there. "Their schools are worse than those in Estonia".

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/882563774020034560

NB quote tweet is from James Forsyth:

@JGForsyth

Has Theresa May ever defended the Tories' economic record as vigorously as this? Might get her a positive mention in the Standard editorial.

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/882563774020034560

NB quote tweet is from James Forsyth:

@JGForsyth

Has Theresa May ever defended the Tories' economic record as vigorously as this? Might get her a positive mention in the Standard editorial.

Why didn't she do this at the bloody election?!

rkrkrk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Does this table tell us much more than the make-up of the readership of Conservative Home? It always was dominated by the wilder-eyed Leavers.

Yes Con Homes 2005 Tory leadership poll not only predicted Cameron would beat Davis but got his margin of victory almost spot on too. So today's poll showing Davis 1st, Boris 2nd and Patel 3rd of Tory runners and riders is a good marker of the views of the Tory membership

In which case is Patel worth a bet?

Only if the Tories lose the next general election, in which case she may be the next but 1 Tory leader after Davis or Boris

O/T anyone following Le Tour?

I'm on Majka for today's stage. Twice a KoM winner so should be involved in this mountain top finish, especially as he seems to be targetting a high GC finish this year rather than the KoM jersey. 33/1 for today.

Also backed Molleka at 100/1 for this years KoM. I think he's targetting this rather than GC and has lost 8 min so far this year so the big boys won't see him as a threat and may allow him to get away up the road, probably not today but the upcoming mountain stages. Of course he could just be feeling weak after doing the Giro but I'll take that chance.

I fancy Latour for the young riders jersey. havent backed him yet. hope to get a better price tomorrow. 7/1 was available this morning but the bookies I have cash with were best 5/1.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well there are various changes I would make. One of the big issues that the change in the system didn't result in, was

a) a proper market i.e there is just no way that a degree from Oxford is worth the same as Oxford Brookes

b) different subjects cost a vastly different amount to put on e.g Chemistry at a top uni costs about £15k per student per year, media studies at a shit one £3k.

c) things like medicine has become eye wateringly expensive, despite them being very valuable to the nation.

On point (a) I think TSE has a header planned but it must be worth nearly as much.

On point (b) media studies does quite well in employability surveys, even if they are all working as waiters. Amusingly, a hundred years ago the same arguments were made against English degrees -- reading novels was a leisure activity for women, not a serious field of study.

Beverley_C said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416

Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.

Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?

It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.

Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.

The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").

Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!

Lesley, Leslie
Frances, Francis
Vivian, Vivian
Frankie etc

And there are no doubt further ones

Pulpstar said:

paulyork64 said:

O/T anyone following Le Tour?

I'm on Majka for today's stage. Twice a KoM winner so should be involved in this mountain top finish, especially as he seems to be targetting a high GC finish this year rather than the KoM jersey. 33/1 for today.

Also backed Molleka at 100/1 for this years KoM. I think he's targetting this rather than GC and has lost 8 min so far this year so the big boys won't see him as a threat and may allow him to get away up the road, probably not today but the upcoming mountain stages. Of course he could just be feeling weak after doing the Giro but I'll take that chance.

I fancy Latour for the young riders jersey. havent backed him yet. hope to get a better price tomorrow. 7/1 was available this morning but the bookies I have cash with were best 5/1.

I'm hoping Froome wins as I have a bet I placed years ago, 5 TdFs at 20-1.
He needs to win this one really to keep it live I think, as he'll start getting 'old' in the next few years.
If he does win this one, the bet is in fantastic shape of course.

I think he's started this year v well. your bet doesnt conflict with any of mine so good luck! he could definitely win today but I didn't like the price.

Beverley_C said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416

Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.

Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?

It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.

Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.

The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").

Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!

Americans seem also to repurpose surnames as first names so you see Taylor and Jackson, for instance. I expect there will be a few Trumps starting school soon.

dyedwoolie said:

Beverley_C said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416

Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.

Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?

It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.

Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.

The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").

Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!

Lesley, Leslie
Frances, Francis
Vivian, Vivian
Frankie etc

And there are no doubt further ones

Neighbours had a several-month storyline which ended with a baby girl and boy both being named Shannon.

Charlie is an excellent all purpose name

Ishmael_Z said:

nunu said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/882563774020034560

NB quote tweet is from James Forsyth:

@JGForsyth

Has Theresa May ever defended the Tories' economic record as vigorously as this? Might get her a positive mention in the Standard editorial.

Why didn't she do this at the bloody election?!

She is at the top of her game.

Perhaps her escape from the clutches of Beardie n Fifi is responsible.

Becoming convinced May is alternately channelling Nicola Murray & Jim Hacker.