politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories slip back sharply in the latest PB YouGov Weekly
Comments
-
Ninoinoz said:
FPT
I would have preferred her to start cleansing the BBC of its child abuse culture and start the restitution to its victims.Charles said:
So you would have preferred her to try and make political capital out of some despicable actions by a dead man?Ninoinoz said:Incidentally, on writing my reply to JackW, I was reminded of why Maria Miller is such a despicable character.
When the Jimmy Savile scandal exploded into the open, the Conservative Party conference was imminent.
So, what does the DCMS minister (Maria Miller) decide to address the conference about? Gay marriage.
So, gay marriage tops endemic child abuse in the nation's lead broadcaster? Only in Cameron's warped cabinet.
You're saying that there is a culture of child abuse at the BBC?
0 -
This is all UKIP, with the main switch of 2% from Cameron to Farage. The election will be decided as it always was, on how many Tory to UKIP defectors Cameron can win back0
-
Iain Dale @IainDale
Support for Maria Miller is virtually non existent on Tory backbenches. Can't find a single MP to stick up for her on Breakfast tomorrow.1/
Open goal for labour -
Iain Dale @IainDale
2/2 Having said that, Labour are so incompetent they can't find anyone to put up either. Baffling. Missing an open goal.
Maybe not ;-)0 -
Dunno about that. I was born there (Wandsworth), went to school there (Sir Walter St John's Grammar, Battersea) but haven't lived there since I was 18 and the army beckoned, though I have worked there off and on over the years. I love The City for its history, its churches and its institutions but other than that I can't say I have any feeling for London. Am I a Londoner? I don't think so.isam said:0 -
He really is a doughnut, why would Labour want to get rid of Miller.....Jesus wept.Tykejohnno said:
Iain Dale @IainDale
Support for Maria Miller is virtually non existent on Tory backbenches. Can't find a single MP to stick up for her on Breakfast tomorrow.1/
Open goal for labour -
Iain Dale @IainDale
2/2 Having said that, Labour are so incompetent they can't find anyone to put up either. Baffling. Missing an open goal.
Maybe not ;-)0 -
No it isn't ridiculous. You aren't a Londoner, you are a Cornishman or Devonian living in London, and the Bulgarians are Bulgarians living in LondonSeanT said:
It's a ridiculous definition. The whole point of London - the genius of London - is that it absorbs everyone, immediately, and turns them into Londoners. The same way America transforms migrants into Americans.BobaFett said:
I've lived in London 32 years (with the odd foreign sojourn) and I am happy to call myself a Londoner, and I am happy to call the new Bulgarian family down the road Londoners, too, even if they arrived last week. Peter Ackroyd, THE great London historian, is very good on this crucial ability of London (a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, reaffirmed by Danes and then fortified by Normans) to give incomers a sense of belonging, overnight.0 -
Has the ruling party ensured those who remain are of their own party?RodCrosby said:O/T. I notice the Hungarians have managed to almost halve the number of MPs in parliament under their new electoral arrangements...
Just about the correct size now, according to Taagepera's Rule.
0 -
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
0 -
Can you remember the precise date you moved to London?SeanT said:
It's a ridiculous definition. The whole point of London - the genius of London - is that it absorbs everyone, immediately, and turns them into Londoners. The same way America transforms migrants into Americans.BobaFett said:
I've lived in London 32 years (with the odd foreign sojourn) and I am happy to call myself a Londoner, and I am happy to call the new Bulgarian family down the road Londoners, too, even if they arrived last week. Peter Ackroyd, THE great London historian, is very good on this crucial ability of London (a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, reaffirmed by Danes and then fortified by Normans) to give incomers a sense of belonging, overnight.0 -
The daft electoral system will do that for them...perdix said:
Has the ruling party ensured those who remain are of their own party?RodCrosby said:O/T. I notice the Hungarians have managed to almost halve the number of MPs in parliament under their new electoral arrangements...
Just about the correct size now, according to Taagepera's Rule.0 -
Her own party want rid though - ;-)compouter2 said:
He really is a doughnut, why would Labour want to get rid of Miller.....Jesus wept.Tykejohnno said:
Iain Dale @IainDale
Support for Maria Miller is virtually non existent on Tory backbenches. Can't find a single MP to stick up for her on Breakfast tomorrow.1/
Open goal for labour -
Iain Dale @IainDale
2/2 Having said that, Labour are so incompetent they can't find anyone to put up either. Baffling. Missing an open goal.
Maybe not ;-)
ConservativeGR @ToryGrassroots
David Cameron at odds with both top Tories and grassroots as pressure grows on Maria Miller http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/06/downing-street-resists-action-over-expenses …
0 -
The last chance to be a contender for government.Jonathan said:
Why do you say terminal? IMO you would not be in power without him. And what do you mean by last hurrah? A weak win?Sean_F said:My own view is that Cameron's leadership has been terminal for the Conservatives, and that 2015 will be their last hurrah.
Say, Liberals in 1923.
0 -
Maria Miller hanging around the Tory Party like a stale Guinness fart......long may it last.Tykejohnno said:
Her own party want rid though - ;-)compouter2 said:
He really is a doughnut, why would Labour want to get rid of Miller.....Jesus wept.Tykejohnno said:
Iain Dale @IainDale
Support for Maria Miller is virtually non existent on Tory backbenches. Can't find a single MP to stick up for her on Breakfast tomorrow.1/
Open goal for labour -
Iain Dale @IainDale
2/2 Having said that, Labour are so incompetent they can't find anyone to put up either. Baffling. Missing an open goal.
Maybe not ;-)
ConservativeGR @ToryGrassroots
David Cameron at odds with both top Tories and grassroots as pressure grows on Maria Miller http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/06/downing-street-resists-action-over-expenses …0 -
And my apologies for not logging in (especially at weekends) to catch the latest instalment of the "Ah, but does May mean all/none/some of May..." debate.
I hope you understand, chums.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13331381/20140329_232809.jpg
Marks, lads?0 -
People born and brought up in let's say up to zone 3/4 could consider themselves true Londoners, outside that maybe not so much. Personally was born, raised and have lived almost all my life in a London borough, but would say I am an Essex boy, and wouldn't be a Londoner in the way someone who was from Mile End is.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
It's not sad and I'm not trying to be hurtful in excluding anyone. Just that I wouldn't consider someone with a Geordie/Manc/Brummie accent a Londoner. So what? Being a Londoner isn't any better or worse than any other part of the country to me
0 -
I have lived and worked here for 12 years, longer than I have worked anywhere else, own a house here and have started a family here. I could retire here at 70 and still not qualify according to him.SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
I can see the science in it: If he runs off to Chelmsford whinging about, erm, London, he gets to still be a Londoner, from a remote location.0 -
Is that Sticky Vicky?RodCrosby said:And my apologies for not logging in (especially at weekends) to catch the latest instalment of the "Ah, but does May mean all/none/some of May..." debate.
I hope you understand, chums.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13331381/20140329_232809.jpg
Marks, lads?0 -
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !0 -
Interesting. You just avoided the Brixton riots by a few months.SeanT said:
Yes, September 30th 1981. Sunday before the first day of term, for the academic year 1981-82, at University College London.AndyJS said:
Can you remember the precise date you moved to London?SeanT said:
It's a ridiculous definition. The whole point of London - the genius of London - is that it absorbs everyone, immediately, and turns them into Londoners. The same way America transforms migrants into Americans.BobaFett said:
I've lived in London 32 years (with the odd foreign sojourn) and I am happy to call myself a Londoner, and I am happy to call the new Bulgarian family down the road Londoners, too, even if they arrived last week. Peter Ackroyd, THE great London historian, is very good on this crucial ability of London (a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, reaffirmed by Danes and then fortified by Normans) to give incomers a sense of belonging, overnight.0 -
So if we get the right/centre right vote split,christ,we could have a labour government 15 to 20 years.Sean_F said:
The last chance to be a contender for government.Jonathan said:
Why do you say terminal? IMO you would not be in power without him. And what do you mean by last hurrah? A weak win?Sean_F said:My own view is that Cameron's leadership has been terminal for the Conservatives, and that 2015 will be their last hurrah.
Say, Liberals in 1923.
I've just took a big gulp ;-)
0 -
FPT
Huh? Well, if that's the case, the ratio would be the same all over the World. It isn't.corporeal said:Firstly, surely the simplest explanation is that the Catholic church tends to have a lot more roles for boys than girls. Choirboys, altar boys etc.
Also, who exactly administers the sacraments to girls?
Really? I gave examples, you've given....an assertion.corporeal said:Secondly your gay-friendly thing is false.
Yes, but the ratio is nothing like the USA. In fact, the USA figures are so huge they skew the statistics.corporeal said:You wrongly specify the RCC in the USA since child abuse scandals have been happening in the RCC worldwide including places where the RRC certainly isn't gay friendly.
The estimate is 30% of American priests are homosexual, but the vast majority of them keep their vows. But my, what damage the 3% have done, overwhelmingly to boys.
Amazingly, it takes time for the children to grow up, even longer to confront their ordeal.corporeal said:Equally I'd question your connection of modern gay-friendly organisations when referring to cases that happened decades ago.
And you use this to excuse child rape?
What's absolutely pitiful about your post (and JackW's) is that you show absolutely no concern for the victims, just trying to defend a particular cohort.
Disgusting.0 -
Never said I was a londonerBobaFett said:
I have lived and worked here for 12 years, longer than I have worked anywhere else, own a house here and have started a family here. I could retire here at 70 and still not qualify according to him.SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
I can see the science in it: If he runs off to Chelmsford whinging about, erm, London, he gets to still be a Londoner, from a remote location.0 -
I'll always be a coventrian. Don't live there now but I haven't suddenly become a yorkshireman...BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
The person you refer in yr post is, and always will be a Manc.0 -
Normally Sean not only do I agree with what you say but am in amusement at how you say it.SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
However, you may be an adopted Londoner but you will never be a Londoner. By the same token my wife's grandad was Cornish, he worked in Holmans and down Crofty. When he died many years ago his cottage wasn't worth two bob so her family renovated it and go down there regularly, one has moved to Cornwall permanently. He eats pasties every week, drinks loads of Doom Bar but it doesn't make him Cornish.
Much as you want to be a Londoner you will never be one, you just live there.0 -
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !0 -
So as soon as someone moves to a new city they become someone from that city in the same way that someone who was born there and whose family lived there for generations is?SeanT said:
You don't understand how London works, or, more importantly, WHY London works. It is THE great city of immigration, more than New York, because it has been doing it for so much longer. It has always sucked people in age 12, 15, 21, turning them into Londoners, then they leave when they have kids or grow old.isam said:
People born and brought up in let's say up to zone 3/4 could consider themselves true Londoners, outside that maybe not so much. Personally was born, raised and have lived almost all my life in a London borough, but would say I am an Essex boy, and wouldn't be a Londoner in the way someone who was from Mile End is.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
It's not sad and I'm not trying to be hurtful in excluding anyone. Just that I wouldn't consider someone with a Geordie/Manc/Brummie accent a Londoner. So what? Being a Londoner isn't any better or worse than any other part of the country to me
In the past the death rates in London were so bad (much worse than in the country as a whole) this ability to suck people in was the only thing that kept London going, and growing.
Not in my book
If I lived the rest if my life in Manchester I wouldn't be a mancunian in the way that Gary Neville is would I? Of course not
Just cos it sounds cool to say you're a Londoner doesn't make it true. Same goes for me0 -
For Morris Dancer and others wondering about what Russia might do next:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/after-crimea-moldova-too-fears-unwanted-events-on-road-to-eu/497129.html?ask_mobile=Y0 -
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !0 -
FPT
Jimmy Savile (note the spelling) had everything to do with the BBC. The BBC is Maria Miller's responsibility. She should have dropped EVERYTHING to deal with it.Flightpath said:May I say how despicable I find Ninoinoz comments to be. Jimmy Saville has nothing to do with gay marriage. But clearly anti gay marriage and similar intolerance has got a lot to do with a lot of the vitriol directed at Cameron Miller the govt.
Are you genuinely surprised that people are angry the way they've been treated? The whole way the Same Sex Marriage Act has come into being:
Not in Conservative Party manifesto, but in a supplement published three days before the election.
Not in the coalition agreement.
A consultation being wrung out of the Government, it which subsequently ignored.
False documentation put out by the DCMS.
No referendum.
Relying on opposition votes to get the bill passed.
And Cameron still expects social conservatives to vote him in the next election.
pbbbbbbbbbttttt!0 -
London is an idea as much as a city, it's a shared enterprise between people who have by and large chosen to make it their home. New York is the same.
Manchester isn't. I can't explain why, but it just is.0 -
I'm a Londoner through and through, born and bred, parents, grandparernts, 7/8 greats, significant ancestral lines to C18 east end. Anyone who can't match that must call themselves a 'nouveau Londoner' so that real Londoners like me don't have to explain our heritage.0
-
Next up, the Hungarian general election. If anyone else is interested, here's an English language rolling summary:
http://www.politics.hu/20140406/2014-hungarian-national-election-liveblog-april-6/0 -
Nah you're a country boy who lives in London. Nothing to be ashamed ofSeanT said:
What you are saying is tragically mistaken, but I will forgive you your stunted chavvy logic, as I am a quintessential wealthy north Londoner, and we are soft hearted.isam said:
So as soon as someone moves to a new city they become someone from that city in the same way that someone who was born there and whose family lived there for generations is?SeanT said:
You don't understand how London works, or, more importantly, WHY London works. It is THE great city of immigration, more than New York, because it has been doing it for so much longer. It has always sucked people in age 12, 15, 21, turning them into Londoners, then they leave when they have kids or grow old.isam said:
People born and brought up in let's say up to zone 3/4 could consider themselves true Londoners, outside that maybe not so much. Personally was born, raised and have lived almost all my life in a London borough, but would say I am an Essex boy, and wouldn't be a Londoner in the way someone who was from Mile End is.BobaFett said:isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
It's not sad and I'm not trying to be hurtful in excluding anyone. Just that I wouldn't consider someone with a Geordie/Manc/Brummie accent a Londoner. So what? Being a Londoner isn't any better or worse than any other part of the country to me
In the past the death rates in London were so bad (much worse than in the country as a whole) this ability to suck people in was the only thing that kept London going, and growing.
Not in my book
If I lived the rest if my life in Manchester I wouldn't be a mancunian in the way that Gary Neville is would I? Of course not
Just cos it sounds cool to say you're a Londoner doesn't make it true. Same goes for me0 -
No you idiot. You're pointing at organisations that (to some extent) are gay friendly now, but are talking about cases that happened decades ago, i.e. before the organisations were gay friendly.Ninoinoz said:FPT
Huh? Well, if that's the case, the ratio would be the same all over the World. It isn't.corporeal said:Firstly, surely the simplest explanation is that the Catholic church tends to have a lot more roles for boys than girls. Choirboys, altar boys etc.
Also, who exactly administers the sacraments to girls?
Really? I gave examples, you've given....an assertion.corporeal said:Secondly your gay-friendly thing is false.
Yes, but the ratio is nothing like the USA. In fact, the USA figures are so huge they skew the statistics.corporeal said:You wrongly specify the RCC in the USA since child abuse scandals have been happening in the RCC worldwide including places where the RRC certainly isn't gay friendly.
The estimate is 30% of American priests are homosexual, but the vast majority of them keep their vows. But my, what damage the 3% have done, overwhelmingly to boys.
Amazingly, it takes time for the children to grow up, even longer to confront their ordeal.corporeal said:Equally I'd question your connection of modern gay-friendly organisations when referring to cases that happened decades ago.
And you use this to excuse child rape?
What's absolutely pitiful about your post (and JackW's) is that you show absolutely no concern for the victims, just trying to defend a particular cohort.
Disgusting.
Do you have a source for any of these numbers you're throwing out?0 -
Evening all
Isam asked a couple of nights ago how long I'd lived in East London. Answer is fifteen years in East Ham - my mother was born in Forest Gate though the house she was born in suffered some serious re-arranging by the Luftwaffe but my Mum had been evacuated so was safe. Mrs Stodge's family hail from Dalston and Hackney way.
My Dad's family come from Millwall and Coldharbour - my father was born there but the family moved to south London in the 1930s. My mum's family came to south London from the east end in the 1950s.
Apart from my time at University, I've lived in south or east London (north London is the home of the two-headed troll people, particularly around Primrose Hill, I'm told).
I reckon I'm a Londoner though some may disagree - as SeanT says, the place absorbs you and changes you. One day we'll leave - it's not a place I want to grow old in - it's a place for the young and the dynamic.0 -
A real Londoner would just say 'I was born and raised here mate, what are you on about?'SeanT said:
I don't WANT to be a Londoner, I just AM. Anyone who fails to see this does not understand London.nigel4england said:
Normally Sean not only do I agree with what you say but am in amusement at how you say it.SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
However, you may be an adopted Londoner but you will never be a Londoner. By the same token my wife's grandad was Cornish, he worked in Holmans and down Crofty. When he died many years ago his cottage wasn't worth two bob so her family renovated it and go down there regularly, one has moved to Cornwall permanently. He eats pasties every week, drinks loads of Doom Bar but it doesn't make him Cornish.
Much as you want to be a Londoner you will never be one, you just live there.
FWIW None of you lot are Brits compared to me - you don't belong here, so bog off. You're all Europeans, bloody continentals, a bunch of lousy Germans and Frogs, you make me puke.
Bog off back to garlic and sausage land.
By contrast, the Cornish have been here SINCE THE ICE AGE. Hah.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160853/For-truest-Brits-west-Welsh-Cornish-ancient-Britons-DNA-analysis-finds.html0 -
+1SeanT said:
It's a ridiculous definition. The whole point of London - the genius of London - is that it absorbs everyone, immediately, and turns them into Londoners. The same way America transforms migrants into Americans.BobaFett said:
I've lived in London 32 years (with the odd foreign sojourn) and I am happy to call myself a Londoner, and I am happy to call the new Bulgarian family down the road Londoners, too, even if they arrived last week. Peter Ackroyd, THE great London historian, is very good on this crucial ability of London (a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, reaffirmed by Danes and then fortified by Normans) to give incomers a sense of belonging, overnight.
iSam needs to get out into the countryside more. You can live all your life bar one day in a remote country village and still be an outsider. I once met a Scottish doctor who'd been present at the birth of a quarter of his village, yet was still referred to as, essentially, a foreigner (I forget the exact Gaelic term used).
In comparison, big cities are incredibly easy to become part of. They can be very inclusive, yet also sad, lonely places.0 -
Sorry Sean, telling people who were born, raised, educated and work in London that they do not understand London is ludicrous.SeanT said:
I don't WANT to be a Londoner, I just AM. Anyone who fails to see this does not understand London.nigel4england said:
Normally Sean not only do I agree with what you say but am in amusement at how you say it.SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
However, you may be an adopted Londoner but you will never be a Londoner. By the same token my wife's grandad was Cornish, he worked in Holmans and down Crofty. When he died many years ago his cottage wasn't worth two bob so her family renovated it and go down there regularly, one has moved to Cornwall permanently. He eats pasties every week, drinks loads of Doom Bar but it doesn't make him Cornish.
Much as you want to be a Londoner you will never be one, you just live there.
FWIW None of you lot are Brits compared to me - you don't belong here, so bog off. You're all Europeans, bloody continentals, a bunch of lousy Germans and Frogs, you make me puke.
Bog off back to garlic and sausage land.
By contrast, the Cornish have been here SINCE THE ICE AGE. Hah.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160853/For-truest-Brits-west-Welsh-Cornish-ancient-Britons-DNA-analysis-finds.html
You just live here, you are Cornish so be proud of that as they are great people. You are not and never will be a Londoner.0 -
From what I've read London was in a pretty bad state during the 1970s; a lot of middle-class people moved out during that time. The population reached an all time low in about 1981, which is also when the last docks closed down. Somehow it managed to reinvigorate itself in the mid 1980s.0
-
Sky News- More allegations about Miller. Capital gains tax this time.0
-
I wouldn't mention Combat 18 on here!Blueberry said:I'm a Londoner through and through, born and bred, parents, grandparernts, 7/8 greats, significant ancestral lines to C18 east end. Anyone who can't match that must call themselves a 'nouveau Londoner' so that real Londoners like me don't have to explain our heritage.
0 -
That attitude is why real Londoners are moving outSeanT said:
Exactly right. If you move to Cornwall do you become Cornish overnight? No. Ditto Yorkshire, Plymouth, Leeds, Shetland, Newcastle - almost anywhere.asjohnstone said:London is an idea as much as a city, it's a shared enterprise between people who have by and large chosen to make it their home. New York is the same.
Manchester isn't. I can't explain why, but it just is.
But London IS different. Trying to force some blood-and-soil "identity" onto the definition of Londoner is just embarrassing.0 -
Get lost Tebbit, leave Maria alone. Show some ***ahem*** spine Cameron and stick with her ;-)0
-
Being a "Londoner" is like being "Irish" during the reign of Jackie Charlton. If yer gran once had a sip of Guinness, you were Irish. If your Da' once used Irish peat on his allotment, you could don the emerald.
Sean t once had some jellied eels, so he's definitely a Cockney. iSam has travelled by tube, so he must be too. Boba cries about the beauty of London's parks, so he's probably a Pearly King.0 -
C18 as in Combat 18?Blueberry said:I'm a Londoner through and through, born and bred, parents, grandparernts, 7/8 greats, significant ancestral lines to C18 east end. Anyone who can't match that must call themselves a 'nouveau Londoner' so that real Londoners like me don't have to explain our heritage.
0 -
Which newspaper as that ?old_labour said:Sky News- More allegations about Miller. Capital gains tax this time.
0 -
Thank Heseltine. There really ought to be a fifty-foot statue to him (in Tarzan loincloth?) outside Canary Wharf.AndyJS said:From what I've read London was in a pretty bad state during the 1970s; a lot of middle-class people moved out during that time. The population reached an all time low in about 1981, which is also when the last docks closed down. Somehow it managed to reinvigorate itself in the mid 1980s.
0 -
You forgot to add calculatedly insulting his own party, and long-standing partyworkers, as part of a demented strategy to appeal to the centre-left to win a majority. He succeeded in alienating the former (including me) whilst winning none of the latter.Socrates said:
Oh right. Because he should follow David Cameron's astute tactical manouvers? Like his decision to back Maria Miller to the hilt? Perhaps he should have Cameron's wise planning, like an immigration target that we need to hit our higher education sector to attempt, but still fails because the measure is so badly designed.DavidL said:
Sorry Socrates but some things are barely worth discussing and the leadership qualities of a man who thought it was a good idea to have a bye election in one of the safest seats in the country to try and prove a point and then found himself out manouvred when the others simply refused to play is one of them.
Davies had been a pain ever since he lost to Cameron and this is just yet another example. Such indiscipline and inability to think ahead more than a few minutes at a time is why he would have been a disastrous leader.
Or maybe Cameron's long term thinking? Such as saying we'd have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and then not downplaying expectations about it until the thing actually passed, as could have been predicted for months? Or remedying the EU issue with a claim of repatriation that is clearly never going to work out? Or cutting the UK's military just as Russia is getting back on its feet as an imperialist power, with invasions to potential NATO candidates.
Davis' decision to run for a by-election over civil liberties probably was a mistake, but the man was clearly tearing his hair out how the supposed "liberal Conservative" he was serving under turned out to be a Blair-style authoritarian. Cameron mocked those that care about individual freedom while supporting the shadow areas of government being able to access the content of our private conversations without a warrant. When you have a PM that is so committed to government power over individual privacy, it's hard to know what you can honestly do.
Perhaps people would not need to be such a "pain" to the leadership, if Cameron wasn't making such disastrous issues on the EU, on civil liberties, on defence, etc.
Stupid doesn't come close.
0 -
In those days it would be called "Essex." ;-)Blueberry said:I'm a Londoner through and through, born and bred, parents, grandparernts, 7/8 greats, significant ancestral lines to C18 east end. Anyone who can't match that must call themselves a 'nouveau Londoner' so that real Londoners like me don't have to explain our heritage.
Jeez, I'm a quarter (at least) a Londoner myself. Grandad born in Tottenham, 1891.
I had others mucking about in Spitalfields in 1803 (but I'm sure they were Welsh, bach)
But if you go back further it's Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and Essex.
It was the Railways see, that brought everyone to the Smoke (amongst other cities).0 -
Not by your definition, no.isam said:
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !
0 -
Cameron has screwed up big time over Miller although I suspect the standards she's being judged by would snare many more MP'S - Balls and Cooper to name but two.
He is however blessed by Miliband who each day more closely resembles Beaker. Tomorrow in the Indie he's going to save the squeezed middle from the cost of living crisis.
Labour supporters with half a brain cell must despair of this slogan driven BS.0 -
I suppose lefties have a desire to avoid people feeling like part of a community*, because at some point they start getting conservative about wanting to hang on to it.old_labour said:
(*Obviously there's an exception for some ethnic communities, or at least the ones which can be told that the reason they have lower educational achievement/employment/pay levels is the fault of everyone else, and they need Labour to protect them from such victimisation.)0 -
PoliticsHome @politicshome
Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph front page: 'Miller faces questions over tax on home sale' http://bit.ly/1qa6yGs
0 -
IMO, people who live in London but were not born here often appreciate it more.0
-
Only wannabee 'Londoners' make that argument. It's telling.SeanT said:
Exactly right. If you move to Cornwall do you become Cornish overnight? No. Ditto Yorkshire, Plymouth, Leeds, Shetland, Newcastle - almost anywhere.asjohnstone said:London is an idea as much as a city, it's a shared enterprise between people who have by and large chosen to make it their home. New York is the same.
Manchester isn't. I can't explain why, but it just is.
But London IS different. Trying to force some blood-and-soil "identity" onto the definition of Londoner is just embarrassing.0 -
Can you just let us know whether they win by 2/3rds or not?antifrank said:Next up, the Hungarian general election. If anyone else is interested, here's an English language rolling summary:
http://www.politics.hu/20140406/2014-hungarian-national-election-liveblog-april-6/
0 -
Please let Maria Miller stay for as long as possible. Everyone loves a bit of BLUE ON BLUE INCOMING :-)0
-
OT. Over the years I have refereed/umpired many games - so I know mistakes can be made. But this afternoon I saw one of the most incompetent performances ever - not in football but in Rugby League. The cup match between Huddersfield Giants and St Helens Saints was a big match and it had one of the top referees in Phil Bentham. St Helens dominates the first quarter and went into a 8-0 lead. But Huddersfield came back and were up 10-8 at half-time. This stretched to 16-8. Then the referee started giving a series of penalties against Huddersfield culminating in a red card for a key player. As a result St Helens got it back to 16 all. With 2 minutes to go Huddersfield were camped on St Helens' goal line. A series of dropped goal attempts were charged down but at last one went over ( 17-16). But the referee refused to give it - and refused to go to the video referee for confirmation ( although he had used the video for 2 of the 3 Huddersfield tries). Play went to the other end where St Helens got a dropped goal - 17-16 to them. And the referee's decision is final.0
-
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Normally Sean not only do I agree with what you say but am in amusement at how you say it.
However, you may be an adopted Londoner but you will never be a Londoner. By the same token my wife's grandad was Cornish, he worked in Holmans and down Crofty. When he died many years ago his cottage wasn't worth two bob so her family renovated it and go down there regularly, one has moved to Cornwall permanently. He eats pasties every week, drinks loads of Doom Bar but it doesn't make him Cornish.
Much as you want to be a Londoner you will never be one, you just live there.
I don't WANT to be a Londoner, I just AM. Anyone who fails to see this does not understand London.
FWIW None of you lot are Brits compared to me - you don't belong here, so bog off. You're all Europeans, bloody continentals, a bunch of lousy Germans and Frogs, you make me puke.
Bog off back to garlic and sausage land.
By contrast, the Cornish have been here SINCE THE ICE AGE. Hah.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160853/For-truest-Brits-west-Welsh-Cornish-ancient-Britons-DNA-analysis-finds.html
Sorry Sean, telling people who were born, raised, educated and work in London that they do not understand London is ludicrous.
You just live here, you are Cornish so be proud of that as they are great people. You are not and never will be a Londoner.
You don't understand London. Sorry.
By your logic When/if you or Bobajob or others move out of London will you then cease to be a Londoner? I won't for the simple reason that I am one.
0 -
And yet people like Richad Nabavi seem to think it's perfectly reasonable for them to be judged by a committee of MPs, who can overrule the impartial independent body.saddo said:Cameron has screwed up big time over Miller although I suspect the standards she's being judged by would snare many more MP'S - Balls and Cooper to name but two.
0 -
Because of the decades long time delay, one can't say for certain. Perhaps the influx of perverts abated after '60's.TwistedFireStopper said:Ninoinoz said:FPT
I would have preferred her to start cleansing the BBC of its child abuse culture and start the restitution to its victims.Charles said:
So you would have preferred her to try and make political capital out of some despicable actions by a dead man?Ninoinoz said:Incidentally, on writing my reply to JackW, I was reminded of why Maria Miller is such a despicable character.
When the Jimmy Savile scandal exploded into the open, the Conservative Party conference was imminent.
So, what does the DCMS minister (Maria Miller) decide to address the conference about? Gay marriage.
So, gay marriage tops endemic child abuse in the nation's lead broadcaster? Only in Cameron's warped cabinet.
You're saying that there is a culture of child abuse at the BBC?
However, there certainly was a culture of child abuse before the '60's:
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/10/john-simpson-alleges-sex-abuse-cover-up-at-bbc/
Note that this involved a radio personality.
BBC News has been covering up child abuse for years - as long as you're a BBC employee.
Worryingly, the photo that shows Broadcasting House in my link has Prospero and Ariel by Eric Gill (a now known child abuser) on the front. The young boy is showing his genitals. So, I think I'm right to be suspicious.0 -
Interesting (and a shame to see Mr Chisholm go). Am I missing something or am I misreading the disparity in odds vis-à-vis the actual election result in 2011? I can't make sense of it.Stuart_Dickson said:
He was one of the few intelligent Labour MSPs.AndreaParma_82 said:Malcolm Chisholm MSP is retiring in Edinburgh North & Leith...because Labour today selected a new candidate: Cllr Lesley Hinds
Here are the current odds for the Westminster seat:
Lab 1/20
LD 8/1
SNP 50/1
UKIP 100/1
Con 100/1
Result 2011
Lab (Malcolm Chisholm) 12,858
SNP 12,263
Con 2,928
LD 2,836
She did manage a small increase in the vote in the different seat where she stood in 2011 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/constituency/html/36100.stm
HOWEVER - Cllr Hinds is now the convenor of the transport committee - ie in a real sense the Face of the Trams - and was a Labour councillor for most/all the relevant period. She started in 2012 so gets the benefit of inheriting something almost sorted out and launching the working trams. But she is in the position of having to be photographed smiling while presenting a miserably late, hugely expensive and (for now) viciously truncated system - about which she can do nothing - to a now sceptical and sensitised public. They might have forgotten about it by 2016, but the Fon of Bafut was not necessarily right in regarding all publicity as good publicity - he didn't have to be elected ...
0 -
I should imagine by that definition a fairly low proportion of Londoners would be, erm, Londoners. As a mercantile world city that is a magnet for talent from across the world, I think a more open definition is wiser here.Pulpstar said:
I'll always be a coventrian. Don't live there now but I haven't suddenly become a yorkshireman...BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
The person you refer in yr post is, and always will be a Manc.
0 -
Telegraph. They might have said there was stuff in the Guardian as well.Tykejohnno said:
Which newspaper as that ?old_labour said:Sky News- More allegations about Miller. Capital gains tax this time.
0 -
Nor by any logical definition.BobaFett said:
Not by your definition, no.isam said:
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !0 -
Mick Pork/Twisted Fire Starter (previous thread) Karzai may be useless, but Abdullah Abdullah has experience fighting the Russians and the Taleban with the Northern Alliance and Ahmed Sheh Massoud, he will also have the 300, 000 strong Afghan army behind him and the 10,000 NATO troops he has agreed should stay in the country0
-
Could open a massive can of worms, someone has already mentioned Balls and Cooper, and if CGT is now being raised then Darling will be slaughtered.compouter2 said:Please let Maria Miller stay for as long as possible. Everyone loves a bit of BLUE ON BLUE INCOMING :-)
0 -
Both definitions are logical, to some extent.nigel4england said:
Nor by any logical definition.BobaFett said:
Not by your definition, no.isam said:
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !
But one is insular and narrow. The other open and enterprising, like London itself.
0 -
So I guess isam, nigel and others don't think the Mayor of London is a Londoner?
I would have thought the sensible position is somewhere between the two extremes. You're not a Londoner as soon as you turn up, but equally being a Londoner isn't an impossible group to join. It's like being British: you become it once you have lived there for long enough that you get into the rhythms of the place, pick up the local habits and culture, appreciate its nuances, form an emotional attachment to it, identify as belonging to that group, and instinctively want to defend it from outside criticism.0 -
SeanT Fraser Nelson has an interesting new comparison between Hollande and Miliband
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9176001/french-lessons-2/0 -
You wouldn't know!SeanT said:
"Real Londoners". Jeez. Give me strength. Real Londoners have a bit of backbone and don't eff off at the first sight of a dusky face or a Polish delicatessen.isam said:
That attitude is why real Londoners are moving outSeanT said:
Exactly right. If you move to Cornwall do you become Cornish overnight? No. Ditto Yorkshire, Plymouth, Leeds, Shetland, Newcastle - almost anywhere.asjohnstone said:London is an idea as much as a city, it's a shared enterprise between people who have by and large chosen to make it their home. New York is the same.
Manchester isn't. I can't explain why, but it just is.
But London IS different. Trying to force some blood-and-soil "identity" onto the definition of Londoner is just embarrassing.0 -
By your logic When/if you or Bobajob or others move out of London will you then cease to be a Londoner? I won't for the simple reason that I am one.
Exactly0 -
I have lived in Leicester more than 20 years. When I am holiday and people ask where I am from, I say Leicester. I wouldn't describe myself as Leicester to a native Leicesterian though.
In the Isle of Wight the Island born are known as caulkheads, those who have moved there are overners and visitors are trickles.
Sean T is a London Overner.
But who cares.0 -
The rightwing press in this country I despair at,they part of the problem that is giving miliband keys to no 10,the leftwing press are united in wanting a labour government,example -compouter2 said:Please let Maria Miller stay for as long as possible. Everyone loves a bit of BLUE ON BLUE INCOMING :-)
The Guardian ✔ @guardian
Guardian front page, Monday 7 April 2014: PM at odds with top Tories as pressure grows on Miller pic.twitter.com/Svr8fokEp7
PoliticsHome @politicshome
Tomorrow's Independent front page: 'Miliband to the rescue of the middle classes' http://bit.ly/1e4fnBQ
0 -
It looks very possible. But I'm off to bed before the final result. Either way, Fidesz will be dominant.RodCrosby said:
Can you just let us know whether they win by 2/3rds or not?antifrank said:Next up, the Hungarian general election. If anyone else is interested, here's an English language rolling summary:
http://www.politics.hu/20140406/2014-hungarian-national-election-liveblog-april-6/0 -
Did he speak Gaelic? Could it have been Sasunnach? Lit. Saxon: but with the meanings I believe of southron, lowlander, English-speaker? It may have been a reference to his (presumed) lack of Gaelic. [eduted to restore unintended delete]JosiasJessop said:
+1SeanT said:
It's a ridiculous definition. The whole point of London - the genius of London - is that it absorbs everyone, immediately, and turns them into Londoners. The same way America transforms migrants into Americans.BobaFett said:
I've lived in London 32 years (with the odd foreign sojourn) and I am happy to call myself a Londoner, and I am happy to call the new Bulgarian family down the road Londoners, too, even if they arrived last week. Peter Ackroyd, THE great London historian, is very good on this crucial ability of London (a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, reaffirmed by Danes and then fortified by Normans) to give incomers a sense of belonging, overnight.
iSam needs to get out into the countryside more. You can live all your life bar one day in a remote country village and still be an outsider. I once met a Scottish doctor who'd been present at the birth of a quarter of his village, yet was still referred to as, essentially, a foreigner (I forget the exact Gaelic term used).
In comparison, big cities are incredibly easy to become part of. They can be very inclusive, yet also sad, lonely places.
0 -
Oh dear. I see there's someone else I need to send the tinfoil-hat making instructions to.Ninoinoz said:
Because of the decades long time delay, one can't say for certain. Perhaps the influx of perverts abated after '60's.TwistedFireStopper said:Ninoinoz said:FPT
I would have preferred her to start cleansing the BBC of its child abuse culture and start the restitution to its victims.Charles said:
So you would have preferred her to try and make political capital out of some despicable actions by a dead man?Ninoinoz said:Incidentally, on writing my reply to JackW, I was reminded of why Maria Miller is such a despicable character.
When the Jimmy Savile scandal exploded into the open, the Conservative Party conference was imminent.
So, what does the DCMS minister (Maria Miller) decide to address the conference about? Gay marriage.
So, gay marriage tops endemic child abuse in the nation's lead broadcaster? Only in Cameron's warped cabinet.
You're saying that there is a culture of child abuse at the BBC?
However, there certainly was a culture of child abuse before the '60's:
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/10/john-simpson-alleges-sex-abuse-cover-up-at-bbc/
Note that this involved a radio personality.
BBC News has been covering up child abuse for years - as long as you're a BBC employee.
Worryingly, the photo that shows Broadcasting House in my link has Prospero and Ariel by Eric Gill (a now known child abuser) on the front. The young boy is showing his genitals. So, I think I'm right to be suspicious.0 -
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch
The big story is #ukraine, and I'm just hearing and seeing parochial minutiae about #MariaMiller
0 -
SeanT said:
Get in your smelly charabanc and f*ck off to Thurrock. YOU'RE NOT WANTED HERE. This is LONDON: only the rich and smart can hack it.Blueberry said:
Only wannabee 'Londoners' make that argument. It's telling.SeanT said:
Exactly right. If you move to Cornwall do you become Cornish overnight? No. Ditto Yorkshire, Plymouth, Leeds, Shetland, Newcastle - almost anywhere.asjohnstone said:London is an idea as much as a city, it's a shared enterprise between people who have by and large chosen to make it their home. New York is the same.
Manchester isn't. I can't explain why, but it just is.
But London IS different. Trying to force some blood-and-soil "identity" onto the definition of Londoner is just embarrassing.
Same as a low proportion of Londoners are cockneys.BobaFett said:
I should imagine by that definition a fairly low proportion of Londoners would be, erm, Londoners. As a mercantile world city that is a magnet for talent from across the world, I think a more open definition is wiser here.Pulpstar said:
I'll always be a coventrian. Don't live there now but I haven't suddenly become a yorkshireman...BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
The person you refer in yr post is, and always will be a Manc.
I have a good mate from Cheshire who worked in the City and lived in Shad Thames for years but moved back to Cheshire when he started a family. Is he a Londoner?0 -
Jobbik on 21%.RodCrosby said:
Can you just let us know whether they win by 2/3rds or not?antifrank said:Next up, the Hungarian general election. If anyone else is interested, here's an English language rolling summary:
http://www.politics.hu/20140406/2014-hungarian-national-election-liveblog-april-6/
Interesting...0 -
Seant: jellied eels and liquor or a nice Kelly's vanilla ice cream?
BTW, a real Londoner would have the ice cream every time.
0 -
I honestly cannot remember. It was all Gaelic to me. ;-)Carnyx said:
Did he speak Gaelic? Could it have been Sasunnach? Lit. Saxon: but with the meanings I believe of southron, lowlander, English-speaker? It may have been a reference to his (presumed) lack of Gaelic. [eduted to restore unintended delete]JosiasJessop said:
+1SeanT said:
It's a ridiculous definition. The whole point of London - the genius of London - is that it absorbs everyone, immediately, and turns them into Londoners. The same way America transforms migrants into Americans.BobaFett said:
I've lived in London 32 years (with the odd foreign sojourn) and I am happy to call myself a Londoner, and I am happy to call the new Bulgarian family down the road Londoners, too, even if they arrived last week. Peter Ackroyd, THE great London historian, is very good on this crucial ability of London (a city founded by Italians, rebuilt by Germans, reaffirmed by Danes and then fortified by Normans) to give incomers a sense of belonging, overnight.
iSam needs to get out into the countryside more. You can live all your life bar one day in a remote country village and still be an outsider. I once met a Scottish doctor who'd been present at the birth of a quarter of his village, yet was still referred to as, essentially, a foreigner (I forget the exact Gaelic term used).
In comparison, big cities are incredibly easy to become part of. They can be very inclusive, yet also sad, lonely places.
It could just as easily have been a local word I didn't recognise. Having said all that, with the exception of Ullapool and the area immediately around Aberdeen, the inhabitants of northern Scotland are amazingly friendly to outsiders. Great people.0 -
The other is complete rubbish for the reasons I have explained.BobaFett said:
Both definitions are logical, to some extent.nigel4england said:
Nor by any logical definition.BobaFett said:
Not by your definition, no.isam said:
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !
But one is insular and narrow. The other open and enterprising, like London itself.0 -
22:34 Fidesz picks up 95% of mail-in votes from Hungarian citizens living in neighboring countries; Jobbik places second with 2.4 percent. [valasztas.hu]0
-
Er! People, I've come late to the conversation, so what is this a about being a Londonder? I was born there but I would never be proud of admitting it. To non paraphrase Johnstone, to be British is to walk the road out of London.
The last time I was there, I was on the Tube to Kings Cross semi listening into a conversation between 2 young ladies about going to Edinburgh for the festival. On my way to the doors, I brushed past one of them, I apologised but got a mouthful of abuse in return. I just looked at her, and told her not to bother going to Edinburgh with that attitude.
I was once told by a French man that Paris extended 20k from the centre, after that was France. I would consider something similar for London to the UK.0 -
Give it time and she'll be joined by plenty of others. Even if some of the Cameroons and Blairites haven't caught on yet they eventually will. This is not a one-off and all the papers are preparing for another feeding frenzy on expenses in due course. Most MPs did not learn a thing from the first scandal and have given themselves more than enough rope since then to hang themselves, unsurprisingly enough.Tykejohnno said:
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch
The big story is #ukraine, and I'm just hearing and seeing parochial minutiae about #MariaMiller0 -
In Scotland there are two alternative questions.foxinsoxuk said:I have lived in Leicester more than 20 years. When I am holiday and people ask where I am from, I say Leicester. I wouldn't describe myself as Leicester to a native Leicesterian though.
In the Isle of Wight the Island born are known as caulkheads, those who have moved there are overners and visitors are trickles.
Sean T is a London Overner.
But who cares.
"Where do you stay?" - my answer is Renfrewshire.
"Where are you from (or fae) ?" - my answer is Worcestershire.
0 -
Haha he is so desperate to be a Londoner it's excrutiating! How embarrassingnigel4england said:
The other is complete rubbish for the reasons I have explained.BobaFett said:
Both definitions are logical, to some extent.nigel4england said:
Nor by any logical definition.BobaFett said:
Not by your definition, no.isam said:
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !
But one is insular and narrow. The other open and enterprising, like London itself.0 -
Looks to me that Fidesz will get at least 70% of the seats...0
-
Thurrock is becoming the location of choice for black Africans in the London area. Must be the cheap housing (no disrespect intended).
http://www.yourthurrock.com/2012/12/15/census-reveals-1500-increase-in-black-population-in-thurrock/0 -
Thanks for the offer.JosiasJessop said:
Oh dear. I see there's someone else I need to send the tinfoil-hat making instructions to.Ninoinoz said:
Because of the decades long time delay, one can't say for certain. Perhaps the influx of perverts abated after '60's.TwistedFireStopper said:Ninoinoz said:FPT
I would have preferred her to start cleansing the BBC of its child abuse culture and start the restitution to its victims.Charles said:
So you would have preferred her to try and make political capital out of some despicable actions by a dead man?Ninoinoz said:Incidentally, on writing my reply to JackW, I was reminded of why Maria Miller is such a despicable character.
When the Jimmy Savile scandal exploded into the open, the Conservative Party conference was imminent.
So, what does the DCMS minister (Maria Miller) decide to address the conference about? Gay marriage.
So, gay marriage tops endemic child abuse in the nation's lead broadcaster? Only in Cameron's warped cabinet.
You're saying that there is a culture of child abuse at the BBC?
However, there certainly was a culture of child abuse before the '60's:
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/10/john-simpson-alleges-sex-abuse-cover-up-at-bbc/
Note that this involved a radio personality.
BBC News has been covering up child abuse for years - as long as you're a BBC employee.
Worryingly, the photo that shows Broadcasting House in my link has Prospero and Ariel by Eric Gill (a now known child abuser) on the front. The young boy is showing his genitals. So, I think I'm right to be suspicious.
Perhaps you'd like to expand your defence of the BBC, rather than giving pithy one-liners?0 -
Yes sean I despair at the crap rightwing press,even when miliband gets the criticism of the so called tory papers,it backfires like the attack on his father 'The man who hated britain'SeanT said:
Pfft. You can hardly claim that Ed Miliband is given an easy ride by the press. He is a national laughing stock. Even leftwing papers mock him.Tykejohnno said:
The rightwing press in this country I despair at,they part of the problem that is giving miliband keys to no 10,the leftwing press are united in wanting a labour government,example -compouter2 said:Please let Maria Miller stay for as long as possible. Everyone loves a bit of BLUE ON BLUE INCOMING :-)
The Guardian ✔ @guardian
Guardian front page, Monday 7 April 2014: PM at odds with top Tories as pressure grows on Miller pic.twitter.com/Svr8fokEp7
PoliticsHome @politicshome
Tomorrow's Independent front page: 'Miliband to the rescue of the middle classes' http://bit.ly/1e4fnBQ
I'm afraid Maria Miller is Tory self harm. That ridiculously terse apology. Tut.
Besides, if Miliband wins it will be thanks to the electoral system, not the media.
I agree with you on miller but part of the attack on her by certain papers is for me is leveson pay back time.
Your blogs on the telegraph as more bite than the weak and pi$$ poor attacks on labour by the rightwing press.
0 -
That's the point. Very few people living in London are Londoners. That's why people that live there don't mind the fact it is a transient place that few really think of as home, be wise home when it comes to the crunch, where their family and roots are, where they watched football on a Saturday with their mates as a kid, was far awayBobaFett said:
I should imagine by that definition a fairly low proportion of Londoners would be, erm, Londoners. As a mercantile world city that is a magnet for talent from across the world, I think a more open definition is wiser here.Pulpstar said:
I'll always be a coventrian. Don't live there now but I haven't suddenly become a yorkshireman...BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
The person you refer in yr post is, and always will be a Manc.0 -
I agree. However, I also agree (on a comment of yours a few days ago) that the 1990-1997 period did permanent damage to the Conservative party.Sean_F said:
My own view is that Cameron's leadership has been terminal for the Conservatives, and that 2015 will be their last hurrah.Socrates said:
Perhaps people would not need to be such a "pain" to the leadership, if Cameron wasn't making such disastrous issues on the EU, on civil liberties, on defence, etc.DavidL said:
I think the root-cause of this, I'm sorry to say, was formally factionalising the party from the early 1980s onwards. It had reached fever pitch by 1990 and, once the lid was off, no leader ever found a way to appeal to the broad mass of the whole party again. The Conservatives lost their core strength, one they had always had: loyalty. It also started to turn inward, bitterly, and became a little bit insular and nasty.
The trouble was once the Conservative party became turbo-charged ideologically, every group starting judging the other by its purity; it's own "interpretation" of proper Conservatism. In some respects, therefore, it was the Tories who were the real losers from the battles of the 1980s, even though it was Labour who formally split. Every leader had a problem in appealing and uniting the various factions behind them. And every leader has since had to, by definition, be from one - or other - of those factions, thereby instantly alienating the others.
No leader has really grasped this problem; managed to articulate what Conservatism is really about. And none has been of the quality needed to unite everyone together, as a party, and that is why they have failed so abysmally.
Cameron shone through in 2005 because he was articulate, media-friendly, and could put on a good show. He got the party an airing it might not otherwise have had. Perhaps we weren't to know that it was just his ambition that was driving him; that he would be so vacuous and empty. But then at that point many of us, like me, were desperate; we could see no-one else and we wanted to believe he was the answer.
Since then, he's pursued an entirely destructive strategy that's almost the exact opposite of the above. A strategy designed to show his own contempt for the Conservative Party to the electorate in the hope they will recognise his enlightenment and elect him. It's nihilistic trajectory has only been tempered by a few in his shadow cabinet that he either understands too little about, or is too apathetic to do anything about. As for results, it's actually accelerated and destroyed the remaining base of the party, without achieving anything of its objectives.
Fundamentally, the question is this: if people see you neither lead, unite or respect your own party, then why should they respect (and vote) for you?0 -
It seems that Fidesz have won at least 95 of the constituency seats . What's less clear is how they'll do in the list seats. The surplus majorities get carried over so I think Rod Crosby is right with his seat estimate.0
-
What you define me as is meaningless. I tell people I'm "from Lomdon" if asked, I never introduce myself as a Londoner. I am merely querying why you seek to create a narrow definition - no need to be childish.isam said:
Haha he is so desperate to be a Londoner it's excrutiating! How embarrassingnigel4england said:
The other is complete rubbish for the reasons I have explained.BobaFett said:
Both definitions are logical, to some extent.nigel4england said:
Nor by any logical definition.BobaFett said:
Not by your definition, no.isam said:
You're not a Londoner, however much you'd like to beBobaFett said:
No it's not an insult no. But that all said nor does it make much sense, for the reasons we have stated. It's not an insular place. Where you live may be however, which probably informs your definition.isam said:
Wouldn't call myself a Londoner no. Despite living my whole life under London council/mayoral laws, as I live on the outskirts in zone 6SeanT said:
I would say a good definition of a Londoner is someone who knows that Londoners are created overnight, as soon as they start living in London - i.e. my definition upthread.BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
Anyone who denies this is NOT a Londoner. e.g. isam?
Wouldn't call you one either, or anyone else that wasnt raised in London. It's not an insult to say someone isn't a Londoner !
But one is insular and narrow. The other open and enterprising, like London itself.0 -
Seems a fair conclusion.SeanT said:
A real Londoner would have the ribeye at Heston Blumenthal's Dinner.Blueberry said:Seant: jellied eels and liquor or a nice Kelly's vanilla ice cream?
BTW, a real Londoner would have the ice cream every time.
And here perhaps is the answer. There are DIFFERENT Londons, and therefore different kinds of Londoner - as one might expect from such a great, ancient and multifarious city.
There is my London, where I am a Londoner, and there is your London, where you are a Londoner; both are perfectly valid, though they exist in parallel and might not overlap.
There. Now shall we move on?
0 -
Why would you be so upset to be a Cornishman that lives in London rather than a Londoner? No offence intended, I amazed you have taken anySeanT said:
Gor blimey, luvaduck. Jumpers for goalposts. Apples and pears, Lumme. What a bleedin' plonker you are.isam said:
That's the point. Very few people living in London are Londoners. That's why people that live there don't mind the fact it is a transient place that few really think of as home, be wise home when it comes to the crunch, where their family and roots are, where they watched football on a Saturday with their mates as a kid, was far awayBobaFett said:
I should imagine by that definition a fairly low proportion of Londoners would be, erm, Londoners. As a mercantile world city that is a magnet for talent from across the world, I think a more open definition is wiser here.Pulpstar said:
I'll always be a coventrian. Don't live there now but I haven't suddenly become a yorkshireman...BobaFett said:
So someone who was born in Manchester and came to live and work in London after university and now owns a house in Herne Hill at 45 is not a Londoner, but someone who was born next to Epping tube and never moved is.isam said:
Not really very narrow. If you were born in Manchester and come to London at 18 you're not a LondonerBobaFett said:
Essex suburbs would be a stretch maybe, but wouldn't be outrageous to say they were a Londone if they lived nr a tube station I guess
It's crazy and sad that you seek to exclude people from a city that is built on attracting talent from all over the world. I think you are in a tiny minority, thankfully.
The person you refer in yr post is, and always will be a Manc.
0 -
@Casino_Royale
"Cameron shone through in 2005 because he was articulate, media-friendly, and could put on a good show. He got the party an airing it might not otherwise have had. Perhaps we weren't to know that it was just his ambition that was driving him; that he would be so vacuous and empty. But then at that point many of us, like me, were desperate; we could see no-one else and we wanted to believe he was the answer.
Since then, he's pursued an entirely destructive strategy that's almost the exact opposite of the above. A strategy designed to show his own contempt for the Conservative Party to the electorate in the hope they will recognise his enlightenment and elect him. It's nihilistic trajectory has only been tempered by a few in his shadow cabinet that he either understands too little about, or is too apathetic to do anything about. As for results, it's actually accelerated and destroyed the remaining base of the party, without achieving anything of its objectives.
Fundamentally, the question is this: if people see you neither lead, unite or respect your own party, then why should they respect (and vote) for you?"
Bravo, Casino_Royal. I couldn't put it better myself.0