nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,410
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Sept 29, 2023 11:51:45 GMT
Just make sure you don't pronounce it "Glaz - go".  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 29, 2023 12:00:30 GMT
Just make sure you don't pronounce it "Glaz - go". Nein! I em from Glaaaaz-goooow. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,410
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Sept 29, 2023 12:13:24 GMT
Just make sure you don't pronounce it "Glaz - go". ! I em from Glaaaaz-goooow. Not Gelsenkirchen? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 29, 2023 12:31:32 GMT
Just make sure you don't pronounce it "Glaz - go". Of course not! The very idea!! It must always be Glarrs-Go |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 29, 2023 12:47:43 GMT
Nein! I em from Glaaaaz-goooow. Not Gelsenkirchen? Warum Gelsenkirchen? Oder, warum nicht Gelsenkirchen? |
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067 
|
Post by Toylyyev on Sept 29, 2023 13:11:19 GMT
Warum Gelsenkirchen? Oder, warum nicht Gelsenkirchen? Gesellenkirchen mostly in the East End of the Ruhr area. PS. After checking the Bundesliga seasons, its usage is probably somewhat dated nowadays. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,637
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 29, 2023 15:08:01 GMT
Just make sure you don't pronounce it "Glaz - go". Nein! I em from Glaaaaz-goooow. You must know the Gorbals.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Sept 29, 2023 16:08:22 GMT
It's 'Ru-the-glen'
Containing 'Camus-lang' 'Hawf-wiy' and 'Blant-ur'
|
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 29, 2023 16:24:05 GMT
It's 'Ru-the-glen' Containing 'Camus-lang' 'Hawf-wiy' and 'Blant-ur' Wit-li-burn |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Sept 29, 2023 16:43:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Sept 29, 2023 16:57:17 GMT
Stonehaven MRP for Rutherglen:
LAB 18,716 (38.1%)
SNP 15,602 (31.8%)
CON 7,791 (15.9%)
LIB 3,883 (7.9%)
GRN 1,228 (2.5%)
RFM 640 (1.3%)
OTH 1,246 (2.5%)
LABOUR majority: 3,114 (6.3%)
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,675
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 29, 2023 17:05:06 GMT
Katy Loudon tries to deflect her SNP cokleagues responsibility for cuts in Acotland. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 30, 2023 3:57:16 GMT
That is what "commonly known as" was intended for, and that's quite reasonable. As is leaving out middle names if you wish. Please tell the ROs who insist you're not allowed to remove middle names and so "John Henry Smith" can use absolutely any name but "John Smith". Is this problem rooted in some bad Electoral Commission advice being taken as gospel? |
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,466
|
Post by peterl on Sept 30, 2023 20:22:58 GMT
That is what "commonly known as" was intended for, and that's quite reasonable. As is leaving out middle names if you wish. Please tell the ROs who insist you're not allowed to remove middle names and so "John Henry Smith" can use absolutely any name but "John Smith". Is this problem rooted in some bad Electoral Commission advice being taken as gospel? All I can say is that I've personally stood both with and without middle names and it's never been challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 30, 2023 21:57:26 GMT
Please tell the ROs who insist you're not allowed to remove middle names and so "John Henry Smith" can use absolutely any name but "John Smith". Is this problem rooted in some bad Electoral Commission advice being taken as gospel? All I can say is that I've personally stood both with and without middle names and it's never been challenged. Case law is that the R.O. has to accept the name (and other details) as given on the face of the paper, as stated by the candidate / agent. There was a case earlier (I think somewhere in Kent in the 1970s) in which a R.O. refused to accept a nomination paper because he insisted on arguing the toss about whether a double-barrel name should have a hyphen in it or not - the outcome of the case was that the R.O. / Council Chief Executive was sacked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 4:37:50 GMT
Given how many expect a Labour win, not taking back Airdrie & Shotts in 2021 was poor form from Labour. The SNP barely kept that in 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 1, 2023 9:29:49 GMT
Yes of course it was, but also of course Labour's showing in Scottish opinion polls is considerably better now than it was then.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,694
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 1, 2023 9:55:52 GMT
It happened just a week after Labour's HISTORIC HUMILIATION in Hartlepool, if anything many were expecting a pro-SNP swing there.
|
|
|
|
Post by borisminor on Oct 1, 2023 17:37:26 GMT
Airdrie and Shotts 2021 was when Labour was at its lowest in the polls, a Nationalist hold always seemed likely. It's not a shock like other SNP by-election results. I think polling this Parliament can be seen from a pre- and post-Batley and Spen perspective. Labour's performance improved after that, even when they were behind in the polls.
Edit - the swing the week before in the corresponding Scottish Parliament constituency was only a 3.1% SNP-Lab swing.
|
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 1, 2023 18:20:13 GMT
Airdrie and Shotts 2021 was when Labour was at its lowest in the polls, a Nationalist gain always seemed likely. It's not a shock like other SNP by-election results. I think polling this Parliament can be seen from a pre- and post-Batley and Spen perspective. Labour's performance improved after that, even when they were behind in the polls. Edit - the swing the week before in the corresponding Scottish Parliament constituency was only a 3.1% SNP-Lab swing. It was an SNP hold |
|
