Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft has not unexpected gloomy news for the LDs in

2

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Angus Labour candidate resigns after Hitler Youth tweet

    Labour’s candidate for Angus in the 2015 general election has been forced to quit after tweeting a picture which seemed to compare Yes protesters to Nazis.

    Kathy Wiles put the image of Hitler Youth on Twitter after a photograph was circulated of youngsters standing under the banner of pro-independence blog site Wings Over Scotland.

    .... Ms Wiles made an online apology in response to outrage that accompanied her internet intervention, but has now resigned following high-level meetings within Scottish Labour two days after her outburst.

    ... A Scottish Labour spokesman said: “We believe that Kathy Wiles has taken the right decision to withdraw in Angus and we will move swiftly to get another candidate in place.

    “The debate about Scotland’s future should be held in a respectful and positive way and we will take robust and immediate action if any of our members fall below these standards.”

    http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/angus-labour-candidate-resigns-after-hitler-youth-tweet-1.449806

    Salmond should follow Wiles' example;

    "OPPOSITION leaders yesterday demanded Alex Salmond apologise after he compared a BBC boss to a Nazi official.

    The First Minister had lashed out after Beeb chief political adviser Ric Bailey barred him from appearing as a pundit before Saturday’s Calcutta Cup rugby match.

    Salmond said Bailey behaved like a “Gauleiter” – a Nazi Party branch leader."

    There can be no truck with this kind of inflammatory rhetoric.


    That was obviously in the general English [language] use of a petty tyrant - traffic wardens are often called that by certain folk. Admittedly ambiguous, but if he had called Mr Bailey a commissar ... Here's another example, quoting someone who likes to play dictator bingo.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/pot-meet-kettle/

    Edit: I had completely forgotten about that, but it's amazing what one can do if someone with a better memory can nudge it ...
    Wiles is a nobody while Salmond is a prominent local politician. The standards should be higher for Salmond. I find your apologetics hypocritical.
    Mr Salmond was reacting - with phraseology that was robust but need not have Nazi overtone
    Educate me - when is Gauleiter used without Nazi overtones?

    Surely the FM should be held to higher, not lower standards than an obscure candidate in a no-hope seat?

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    ToryJim said:

    Wow Russia really is a depressingly illiberal and restrictive nightmare.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-russia-censorship-idUSKBN0F64L920140701

    So Russia have banned obscentities from Television, flms and in theatres and books full of swearing will have to be sold in plain packages with obscenity warnings.

    Good for Russia.

    Perhaps if people had listened to Mary Whitehouse in the 1960s and 1970s instead of deriding her when she objected to the unbanning of such obscenities in the UK, which started with the passing of the 1959 obscene publications act introduced by the dreaded Roy Jenkins (and passed under a Tory government), several hundred children would not have been the victims of certain celebrities.
    Swearing leads to child abuse? Hmmmmmmmm, that's a bit of a stretch.
    You've not heard of the Broken Windows theory?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
    Like most theories, it's crap.
    Swearing is cathartic. Censorship isn't.
    While in the UK sexual obscenities such as C and F are accepted in the media, even mild racial obscenities, let alone the stronger ones are censored ruthlessly with people being prosecuted for saying them let alone on television.

    I have no objection to the west censoring racial obscenities, however for the west to denounce Russia for censoring sexual obscenities in the media when we prosecute and imprison people for uttering racial obscenities in the street or trams let alone in the media is hypocritical.

    So, they're hypocrites. Nothing new there.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Can anyone explain why PP are still offering 1/6 on Lab winning Brent Central? Surely this poll confirms that even if Labour fall back a lot and the LDs recover nationally it's beyond hope. It doesn't even have an incumbent running for re-election.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,609

    lol:-) Suggesting that the laws in the UK prior to the social reforms in the 1960s amounted to a Christian Caliphate is pushing it a bit.

    I was engaged in a little bit of fun.

    But nevertheless my point remains: you are projecting your hopes onto Farage and UKIP despite zero evidence that he shares your worldview, and ample evidence of the opposite.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    So I'm just catching up with yesterday's daily politics, and is it true that 1% of England is covered in golf courses?!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,609
    Quincel said:

    Can anyone explain why PP are still offering 1/6 on Lab winning Brent Central? Surely this poll confirms that even if Labour fall back a lot and the LDs recover nationally it's beyond hope. It doesn't even have an incumbent running for re-election.

    1/100 would be fairer odds.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    ToryJim said:

    Wow Russia really is a depressingly illiberal and restrictive nightmare.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-russia-censorship-idUSKBN0F64L920140701

    So Russia have banned obscentities from Television, flms and in theatres and books full of swearing will have to be sold in plain packages with obscenity warnings.

    Good for Russia.

    Perhaps if people had listened to Mary Whitehouse in the 1960s and 1970s instead of deriding her when she objected to the unbanning of such obscenities in the UK, which started with the passing of the 1959 obscene publications act introduced by the dreaded Roy Jenkins (and passed under a Tory government), several hundred children would not have been the victims of certain celebrities.
    All those Berkeley free speech advocates in the 60s are the most illiberal and repressive ones of them all, hate speech, political correctness etc., unfortunately we are the last country who should be condemning others.

    Having lived in Russia, at least they still have have free speech on political and social matters, something that has long since gone from this country. The freedom to swear is no freedom at all.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    RobD said:

    So I'm just catching up with yesterday's daily politics, and is it true that 1% of England is covered in golf courses?!

    No, it's fore %

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Chances of the papers decorating the story about La Senza going into administration tomorrow with pictures of young women in their undies? 100%

    I don't believe Shadsy would offer 1/100 on that one.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030

    RobD said:

    So I'm just catching up with yesterday's daily politics, and is it true that 1% of England is covered in golf courses?!

    No, it's fore %

    Oh for a *titter* button.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/-sp-tory-summer-party-drew-super-rich-supporters-with-total-wealth-of-11bn

    I don't personally think much can be done about donations, but I'd like to see much tighter spending limits, to limit the perceived need on all sides to attract donors of all kinds.

    Yes, political parties should be funded by the public purse, look at the dreadful state of the US where Adelson et al can buy parties and policies. Although with due nod to David Brat for bucking the trend.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    DavidL said:

    Chances of the papers decorating the story about La Senza going into administration tomorrow with pictures of young women in their undies? 100%

    I don't believe Shadsy would offer 1/100 on that one.

    It will have the feminists up in arms. As long as they can tear themselves away from objectifying firemen and body builders.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/-sp-tory-summer-party-drew-super-rich-supporters-with-total-wealth-of-11bn

    I don't personally think much can be done about donations, but I'd like to see much tighter spending limits, to limit the perceived need on all sides to attract donors of all kinds.

    For someone who employs a lot of low or unskilled labour (for example a big chain of shops) but who is too large scale and mainstream to replace all their shop workers with illegals (like smaller inner-city employers do) then for every person they employ whose wages are £1,000 a year less due to the artificially created labour surplus caused by open borders that is £1000 in their pocket.

    So if they employ 10,000 that would be 10 million a year per £1000 reduction in what they would otherwise have paid.

    Easy to see why £100,000 a year to lobbyists to keep the borders open would be seen as a good return on investment.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,986
    AveryLP said:

    @stodge
    Is there a single seat on that list where you will be backing the Conservatives to win?

    No.

    But then I don't believe inherited wealth should be put at risk in the gambling markets.

    Much better to use it to fund the Conservative Party's wine cellar.

    How many of the 250 or so Labour seats do you envisage the Tories winning next May - 50, 100 perhaps ?

    All depends how long the Labour party are prepared to tolerate Ed Miliband as leader.

    His capacity to self-destruct and bring down his party's electoral chances is limitless.

    Even Bootle isn't safe under his leadership.

    I would contend much "inherited wealth" is the result of a "gamble" whether it's backing the right side on the battlefield or making the right investment at the right time. Most of the patrician wealth in this country is the result of the good fortune of antecedents who took a chance in time of war and peace. I suspect those antecedents would consider your frivolity concerning the Tory wine cellar to be a sad indictment of your heritage.

    As a Conservative, it's almost de rigueur to take a patronisingly negative aspect toward the leader of the Labour party though it should be remembered David Cameron's time as LOTO was not without a few "misfortunes" - I'll see your "eating a bacon butty" with a "huskies in the Arctic". Riding the waves of electoral hazard can be a tricky business and I'm far from convinced Ed Miliband won't be suitably adept when the time comes.

    I can't decide whether the condescension of some of the Conservative-inclined on here is predicated on an unwise complacency and expectation or victory or masks the deeper realisation that such a victory might yet prove to be a chimera.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    DavidL said:

    Chances of the papers decorating the story about La Senza going into administration tomorrow with pictures of young women in their undies? 100%

    I don't believe Shadsy would offer 1/100 on that one.

    Good illustration of how creating a plantation economy (90% poor, 10% rich, no middle) gradually takes out industries that rely on lots of people having disposable income above necessities.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Quincel said:

    Can anyone explain why PP are still offering 1/6 on Lab winning Brent Central? Surely this poll confirms that even if Labour fall back a lot and the LDs recover nationally it's beyond hope. It doesn't even have an incumbent running for re-election.

    Dunno, just chuffed they let me have £80 at 2-9 tbh.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    ToryJim said:

    Wow Russia really is a depressingly illiberal and restrictive nightmare.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-russia-censorship-idUSKBN0F64L920140701

    Ill informed article, Russian isn't 'known for the breadth and inventiveness of its obscene vocabulary'. To even utter a mild swear word has a genuinely shocking effect. Still rather than worry about freedom to be vulgar and coarse what should be of concern is the restrictions placed upon nationalists, btu then they aren't the right opposition for the lefty establishment, even though they are the only opposition.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2014
    FalseFlag said:

    ToryJim said:

    Wow Russia really is a depressingly illiberal and restrictive nightmare.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-russia-censorship-idUSKBN0F64L920140701

    So Russia have banned obscentities from Television, flms and in theatres and books full of swearing will have to be sold in plain packages with obscenity warnings.

    Good for Russia.

    Perhaps if people had listened to Mary Whitehouse in the 1960s and 1970s instead of deriding her when she objected to the unbanning of such obscenities in the UK, which started with the passing of the 1959 obscene publications act introduced by the dreaded Roy Jenkins (and passed under a Tory government), several hundred children would not have been the victims of certain celebrities.
    All those Berkeley free speech advocates in the 60s are the most illiberal and repressive ones of them all, hate speech, political correctness etc., unfortunately we are the last country who should be condemning others.

    Having lived in Russia, at least they still have have free speech on political and social matters, something that has long since gone from this country. The freedom to swear is no freedom at all.
    If you have lived in Russia, you will know that swearing peppers language at all levels.

    You will also know that laws such as those being proposed to ban swearing from films, tv and books will be honoured more in the breach than the observance. The new law will also fuel a whole new genre of jokes and workarounds.

    One of my favourite Russian terms of abuse is Шлуха вокзальная (Shluha vokzal'naja) a variant on TSE's "dockside hooker".
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JBriskin said:

    Fun Bet Post

    Me and Ms Briskin are on USA - we've been trying to work out a word for a USAphile but can't work out one?? Serious question - we want to know what the correct term is. e.g Americanophile sounds like we like coffee.

    For Brits engaged in this kind of behaviour the usual term is Atlanticist.

    Ameriphile is also used.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    did you have any concern about Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson et al courting the super rich?

    Yes. I'm not especially bothered by people having lots of money or indeed wanting to donate it to a party instead of spending it on riotous living. And in the current situation we all need to raise what we can. My question was deliberately non-specific - includes companies, millionaires, lobbyists, unions, whatever. How far do we want to go down the American path where you often need to be or know a millionaire to stand?

    We certainly don't want to permanently fund the current parties from public money. No party has a state sponsored right to exist.
    If funding was based on number of seats then no party would have a state sponsored right to exist.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    The most interesting aspect of the new Russki law (imo) is as part of WWIII.

    asymmetric warfare
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Perhaps @Paul_Mid_Beds has a point ....

    I mean, there are some books !! ..... would you even wish your wife or your servants to read?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    AveryLP said:

    FalseFlag said:

    ToryJim said:

    Wow Russia really is a depressingly illiberal and restrictive nightmare.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-russia-censorship-idUSKBN0F64L920140701

    So Russia have banned obscentities from Television, flms and in theatres and books full of swearing will have to be sold in plain packages with obscenity warnings.

    Good for Russia.

    Perhaps if people had listened to Mary Whitehouse in the 1960s and 1970s instead of deriding her when she objected to the unbanning of such obscenities in the UK, which started with the passing of the 1959 obscene publications act introduced by the dreaded Roy Jenkins (and passed under a Tory government), several hundred children would not have been the victims of certain celebrities.
    All those Berkeley free speech advocates in the 60s are the most illiberal and repressive ones of them all, hate speech, political correctness etc., unfortunately we are the last country who should be condemning others.

    Having lived in Russia, at least they still have have free speech on political and social matters, something that has long since gone from this country. The freedom to swear is no freedom at all.
    If you have lived in Russia, you will know that swearing peppers language at all levels.

    You will also know that laws such as those being proposed to ban swearing from films, tv and books will be honoured more in the breach than the observance. The new law will also fuel a whole new genre of jokes and workarounds.

    One of my favourite Russian terms of abuse is Шлуха вокзальная (Shluha vokzal'naja) a variant on TSE's "dockside hooker".
    No, swearing is regarded the same as it was in this country pre 1960s, I have no idea of the company you kept.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    In a plantation economy (90% poor, 10% rich, no middle) the poor have a many to few relationship to spending i.e. there's a lot of them but almost all their income goes on a few things: housing, food, energy.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/-sp-tory-summer-party-drew-super-rich-supporters-with-total-wealth-of-11bn

    "including 73 financiers, 47 retail and property tycoons, 10 in oil, gas and mining and 19 working in public affairs and PR"
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    edited July 2014
    I see Polly has returned to CIF after a month in the Villa with one of the most hysterical, OTT rant's in years...

    Guess she's getting worried that Ed The Younger's blowing it.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FalseFlag said:

    AveryLP said:

    FalseFlag said:

    ToryJim said:

    Wow Russia really is a depressingly illiberal and restrictive nightmare.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-russia-censorship-idUSKBN0F64L920140701

    So Russia have banned obscentities from Television, flms and in theatres and books full of swearing will have to be sold in plain packages with obscenity warnings.

    Good for Russia.

    Perhaps if people had listened to Mary Whitehouse in the 1960s and 1970s instead of deriding her when she objected to the unbanning of such obscenities in the UK, which started with the passing of the 1959 obscene publications act introduced by the dreaded Roy Jenkins (and passed under a Tory government), several hundred children would not have been the victims of certain celebrities.
    All those Berkeley free speech advocates in the 60s are the most illiberal and repressive ones of them all, hate speech, political correctness etc., unfortunately we are the last country who should be condemning others.

    Having lived in Russia, at least they still have have free speech on political and social matters, something that has long since gone from this country. The freedom to swear is no freedom at all.
    If you have lived in Russia, you will know that swearing peppers language at all levels.

    You will also know that laws such as those being proposed to ban swearing from films, tv and books will be honoured more in the breach than the observance. The new law will also fuel a whole new genre of jokes and workarounds.

    One of my favourite Russian terms of abuse is Шлуха вокзальная (Shluha vokzal'naja) a variant on TSE's "dockside hooker".
    No, swearing is regarded the same as it was in this country pre 1960s, I have no idea of the company you kept.
    Nor do I.

    I spent most of my time drunk.

    I accept it is possible I may have been corrupted.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

    So I put up a note saying access to my garden is free for all and then I am exempt from land tax. See a problem with that?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    MrJones said:

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    did you have any concern about Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson et al courting the super rich?

    Yes. I'm not especially bothered by people having lots of money or indeed wanting to donate it to a party instead of spending it on riotous living. And in the current situation we all need to raise what we can. My question was deliberately non-specific - includes companies, millionaires, lobbyists, unions, whatever. How far do we want to go down the American path where you often need to be or know a millionaire to stand?

    We certainly don't want to permanently fund the current parties from public money. No party has a state sponsored right to exist.
    If funding was based on number of seats then no party would have a state sponsored right to exist.
    True, but no new party could ever come into being either. Unless of course parties could still be funded from private donations, which takes us back to square one but with the taxpayers even further out of pocket.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    rcs1000 said:


    Like many London seats, H&WG is undergoing a big demographic shift: it is gentrifying at quite a rate ..... the gentrifying bits are full of Conservative supporters who may vote tactically.

    There simply arent enough Tory votes left to squeeze in H&WG going on the local election results in May. There are far more Green votes to squeeze and they seem to me to be more likely to go Labour than Lib Dem.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    stodge said:

    AveryLP said:

    @stodge
    Is there a single seat on that list where you will be backing the Conservatives to win?

    No.

    But then I don't believe inherited wealth should be put at risk in the gambling markets.

    Much better to use it to fund the Conservative Party's wine cellar.

    How many of the 250 or so Labour seats do you envisage the Tories winning next May - 50, 100 perhaps ?

    All depends how long the Labour party are prepared to tolerate Ed Miliband as leader.

    His capacity to self-destruct and bring down his party's electoral chances is limitless.

    Even Bootle isn't safe under his leadership.

    I can't decide whether the condescension of some of the Conservative-inclined on here is predicated on an unwise complacency and expectation or victory or masks the deeper realisation that such a victory might yet prove to be a chimera.

    It is mostly inherited through a super-gene, Stodge.

    The little that isn't is taught at public school.

    Can you not remember the Master's lectures in the Great Hall?

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    did you have any concern about Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson et al courting the super rich?

    Yes. I'm not especially bothered by people having lots of money or indeed wanting to donate it to a party instead of spending it on riotous living. And in the current situation we all need to raise what we can. My question was deliberately non-specific - includes companies, millionaires, lobbyists, unions, whatever. How far do we want to go down the American path where you often need to be or know a millionaire to stand?

    We certainly don't want to permanently fund the current parties from public money. No party has a state sponsored right to exist.
    If funding was based on number of seats then no party would have a state sponsored right to exist.
    True, but no new party could ever come into being either. Unless of course parties could still be funded from private donations, which takes us back to square one but with the taxpayers even further out of pocket.
    Yeah, a new party would have to rely on volunteers at first.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics · 28s

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    MrJones said:

    In a plantation economy (90% poor, 10% rich, no middle) the poor have a many to few relationship to spending i.e. there's a lot of them but almost all their income goes on a few things: housing, food, energy.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/-sp-tory-summer-party-drew-super-rich-supporters-with-total-wealth-of-11bn

    "including 73 financiers, 47 retail and property tycoons, 10 in oil, gas and mining and 19 working in public affairs and PR"

    What worries me is this bit:

    "Others on the prime minister’s tables included Nicolas Berggruen, an investor known as the “homeless billionaire” because he lives in hotels around the world; Darko Horvat, a Slovenian tycoon; and the property grandee Sir John Ritblat."

    That's the PM dining with not one or two, but three Bond villains. I especially love Darko Horvat.

    And it is still the case that Bernie Ecclestone could buy all this lot out of petty cash. If I'd been a Blair backbencher in 1997 I would be keeping my head down and saying nowt. I admire NP's chutzpah.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Definite UKIP slippage with YouGov.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Surely any lobbyist primarily motivated by a desire for cheap labour would be funding Labour?

    I suspect that they have other motives.
    MrJones said:

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/-sp-tory-summer-party-drew-super-rich-supporters-with-total-wealth-of-11bn

    I don't personally think much can be done about donations, but I'd like to see much tighter spending limits, to limit the perceived need on all sides to attract donors of all kinds.

    For someone who employs a lot of low or unskilled labour (for example a big chain of shops) but who is too large scale and mainstream to replace all their shop workers with illegals (like smaller inner-city employers do) then for every person they employ whose wages are £1,000 a year less due to the artificially created labour surplus caused by open borders that is £1000 in their pocket.

    So if they employ 10,000 that would be 10 million a year per £1000 reduction in what they would otherwise have paid.

    Easy to see why £100,000 a year to lobbyists to keep the borders open would be seen as a good return on investment.
    MrJones said:

    Do non-Labour people feel any concern about this sort of thing?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/-sp-tory-summer-party-drew-super-rich-supporters-with-total-wealth-of-11bn

    I don't personally think much can be done about donations, but I'd like to see much tighter spending limits, to limit the perceived need on all sides to attract donors of all kinds.

    For someone who employs a lot of low or unskilled labour (for example a big chain of shops) but who is too large scale and mainstream to replace all their shop workers with illegals (like smaller inner-city employers do) then for every person they employ whose wages are £1,000 a year less due to the artificially created labour surplus caused by open borders that is £1000 in their pocket.

    So if they employ 10,000 that would be 10 million a year per £1000 reduction in what they would otherwise have paid.

    Easy to see why £100,000 a year to lobbyists to keep the borders open would be seen as a good return on investment.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited July 2014

    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

    So I put up a note saying access to my garden is free for all and then I am exempt from land tax. See a problem with that?
    No, not at all. You would of course have to register the "note" with the local council so that the public could be informed and it could be added to the land marked as right to roam on OS maps.

    I fear though that if you did you might not like me coming and sunbathing on your lawn every weekend and the Ramblers Associating members making constant visits, not to mention visits from council health and safety inspectors to ensure its not a safety hazard. You would also need to pay for public liability insurance, so I don't think such a means of tax avoidance would be particularly popular. It would though stop organisations like the National Trust being adversely affected.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    CON bounce has un bounced
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    Definite UKIP slippage with YouGov.

    Time to inspect the sub samples. Junker bounce UKIP - Con ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crapper's sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2014


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

    8 DAYS TO GO (Sheffield, 1/4/92).

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564

    CON bounce has un bounced

    Iz wot I predicted, like. But there does seem to be a tendency for the main parties to firm up and UKIP to fade.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,030
    Ishmael_X said:

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

    8 DAYS TO GO (Sheffield, 1/4/92).

    We're alright!!!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.
    Crossover with the Greens by Winterval?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    UKIP were at a very low "raw" figure of 187/1729 last night. Kind of a lowish sample for Yougov that tbh.

    If they are sub 200 it could be the start of a trend.

    I think there has been a small UKIP -> Con movement personally in the wake of Junker.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Pulpstar said:

    UKIP were at a very low "raw" figure of 187/1729 last night. Kind of a lowish sample for Yougov that tbh.

    If they are sub 200 it could be the start of a trend.

    I think there has been a small UKIP -> Con movement personally in the wake of Junker.

    I don't think it a Juncker bounce per se.

    Last year we saw post the locals, a small shift from UKIP to Con.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336

    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

    So I put up a note saying access to my garden is free for all and then I am exempt from land tax. See a problem with that?
    There is something of the sort with works of art, though I forget the details - so long as one lets the odd member of the public come to see it when they ask nicely, there are substantial tax reliefs.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,875
    edited July 2014
    Looks like soccer could finally be catching on in the US, White House Briefing Room tonight

    twitter.com/agreilingkeane/status/484070530782224384/photo/1
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Ishmael_X said:

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

    8 DAYS TO GO (Sheffield, 1/4/92).

    1992 Last ever Tory Majority Gov't?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    FPT. DavidL "Why am I not confident in light of all of this? Well, if you go around Edinburgh in particular you will see dozens of yes stickers in windows and almost no Better Together stickers. You see Yes on many, many cars. Again the Unionist equivalents are almost non existent."

    David, seriously, there is a perfectly good common sense explanation for why there are so many Yes stickers in window or cars while the majority of Scots who are voting No have not bothered........
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

    TRAMADOLADINGDONG!

    The stuff of squirrel nightmares.

    SHOW ME THE CROSSOVER.........SHOW ME THE CROSSOVER!!!!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2014
    Carnyx said:

    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

    So I put up a note saying access to my garden is free for all and then I am exempt from land tax. See a problem with that?
    There is something of the sort with works of art, though I forget the details - so long as one lets the odd member of the public come to see it when they ask nicely, there are substantial tax reliefs.

    Access to artworks.

    Is this why Tracey Emin is so rich and her bed so rumpled?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    My hopes that Fellaini would do well here and reduce our losses by a couple of mill are not bearing much fruit. Surprised he has not been substituted.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336




    Educate me - when is Gauleiter used without Nazi overtones?

    Surely the FM should be held to higher, not lower standards than an obscure candidate in a no-hope seat?

    It is the tinpot dictator connotations that count more than the NSDAP ones. He obviously did not mean that the BBC chap was running the equivalent of a county council in 1933-1945 Germany. Took me less than a quarter of a minute to find this.

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=My3dAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT88&dq=gauleiter+traffic+warden&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ryOzU8TeGMnGObG5gFg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gauleiter traffic warden&f=false

    On exactly the same logic, that it is insulting to call the likes of our Tory PBers after horse thieves, you will be complaining about me using the word "Tory". And I look forward to you condemning the many, many instances of Nazi slurs against the SNP and the pro-Yes campaign.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

    TRAMADOLADINGDONG!

    The stuff of squirrel nightmares.

    SHOW ME THE CROSSOVER.........SHOW ME THE CROSSOVER!!!!
    Happened yesterday in your absence.

    So sorry to hear about Basil. It can't have been for want of fitness.

    When is the funeral?

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336
    AveryLP said:

    Carnyx said:

    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

    So I put up a note saying access to my garden is free for all and then I am exempt from land tax. See a problem with that?
    There is something of the sort with works of art, though I forget the details - so long as one lets the odd member of the public come to see it when they ask nicely, there are substantial tax reliefs.

    Access to artworks.

    Is this why Tracey Emin is so rich and her bed so rumpled?

    Couldn't possibly comment re Ms Emin. But I have refreshed my memory and interestingly it's not just works of art but 'heritage assets' including land and buildings which may be exempt from IHT and CGT. An interesting precedent for Mr Llama!

    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/exemption.htm

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,336

    The inherited wealth debate is interesting but tends to go off at tangents.

    Surely the issue is that the population is such that land has to be considered a finite non replaceable resource, and therefore if a person or corporation has tenure of any sort over it, thereby excluding the rest of the countries citizens from it they should be taxed annually on the benefit that this gives them.

    ie a Land Value Tax on all forms of land other than land open to the public free of charge. The tax would be on the value of the land, not any buildings on it other than to the extent having the building on it makes the land more valuable and be levied annually as a percentage of the land value.

    This would stop things like developers not building on land with planning permission for years at a stroke as the value of the land and hence the tax would rocket as soon as planning permission was obtained.

    So I put up a note saying access to my garden is free for all and then I am exempt from land tax. See a problem with that?
    As it's late - maybe worth my suggesting you have a look at my posting below in case you miss it.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    tim really ought to calm down, it wont do his blood pressure any good.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited July 2014

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,875
    edited July 2014
    Fitalass/David The average No voting Edinburgh solicitor would never be as vulgar as to put a 'Better Together' sticker in his window (for the same reason Tory supporters are far less likely to have election posters than the other parties). The rest of the No voters, with the odd exception, have better things to do. Nats of course have been waiting for this referendum since birth, so probably have YES posters on the loo!!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
    Trend is not your friend Sam.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
    Trend is not your friend Sam.
    It is actually. The trend over the last 18 months shows UKIP are on the up. You like 5 minute trends like last nights You Gov which was then usurped by the ComRes 18%

    I don't take much notice of any UKIP score in the polls, good or bad. It is obvious the pollsters haven't got the hang of their score one way or the other, and deciding who is closest is guesswork until next May

    I place bets using my own nous, and the trend is my very good friend
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Lots of media sources have this story

    Liverpool open talks with Barcelona over transfer of Luis Suárez

    • Liverpool want Chile’s Alexis Sánchez as part of deal

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/01/liverpool-barcelona-luis-suarez-alexis-sanchez?CMP=twt_gu
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    isam said:

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
    Except you ignored the real votes when the NNESV figures showed UKIP falling from last year.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited July 2014

    isam said:

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
    Except you ignored the real votes when the NNESV figures showed UKIP falling from last year.
    Not real votes actually are they? I thought they were an extrapolation of the real votes as if they were countrywide?

    And I thought that was the 18% which another Dave just quoted?

    As I said last night, you can use your methods and I will use mine. I am not saying you are wrong, you could well be right, we will see
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    isam said:


    The trend over the last 18 months shows UKIP are on the up.

    It's almost as if we've had a European election recently.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Iraq: Sunni split.

    In typical fashion the smaller but noisiest part of the Sunni revolt, ISIL, has demanded everyone else involved in the revolt yields to its grand Caliphate idea. The tribes have told them no, the aim to get rid of Maliki.

    It is these very tensions, which have always been there, that offer the greatest threat to the Sunni revolt's cohesion and objectives, not so far the god awful performance of the Iraqi military. At the moment the Western media has focused on Tikrit, the only place where the Iraqi military have truly indulged in full scale offensive action. What is less pointed out is that they blowing the place to rubble and the Sunni insurgents aren't yielding yet. Otherwise Maliki's forces are largely creating a defence of the capital. This appears to involve blowing bridges, setting concrete blocks and raiding Sunni dominated areas.

    In reality though the insurgents are already there and engaging in harassing actions (read suicide bombings and some shooting) as a possible precursor to something else, or simply to keep things busy whilst the main battle for land occurs elsewhere.

    The next stretch of the Sunni revolt, however, may be towards Ramadi. Certainly if you look at it ISILs Caliphate plans they don't need Baghdad, they need good contigious Sunni territory. The Sunni tribes, however want Maliki gone..meaning Baghdad has to be in their sights.

    Curiously the US, who these days assume that influence involves being inactive then coming up with some suggestions floated the idea of insurgents in Syria helping to sort out ISIL in Iraq. The same insurgents who have been subject to some pretty piss and inconsistent US support and are at full stretch as it is.

    Flying drones and giving tactical advice is the US limit but there is clear evidence that they are actively looking at a Green Zone evacuation. If they do, they'll move their liaison staff to Bagram. Where people are not looking at the US effort is across the border in Jordan. The US have a rather useful set of resources there but its working on keep the Jordanians from ISIL-led trouble. The Saudi's too, supporters of their Sunni brothers, see the ISIL element as a serious problem.

    The Russians, meanwhile, have been supplying fighter bombers, but who is maintaining and flying them? The Sunni dominated Saddam era airforce veterans? Unlikely.

    No, Russians and other 3rd parties have turned up to fly them.

    One final note, the wag perception that ISIL are a US supported and funded creation shipped in from the trouble next door all armed with M16's the Yanks gave them in Syria is wrong. ISILs origins are in Iraq and they've been largely self funded for years, engaged in your usual mix of criminal rackets and 'legitimate business' in Iraq for some time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    isam said:

    isam said:

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
    Except you ignored the real votes when the NNESV figures showed UKIP falling from last year.
    Not real votes actually are they? I thought they were an extrapolation of the real votes as if they were countrywide?

    And I thought that was the 18% which another Dave just quoted?
    They are based on real votes and have been very useful in the past, and they showed a drop for UKIP.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TGOHF said:


    Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up three to five points: CON 33%, LAB 38%, LD 8%, UKIP 11%

    Ukip down under 13% for 2nd night in a row.

    Lowest Kipper score in any GE poll since 18th May.
    And on the 22nd May, they got 27.5% in the EU election, and 18% in the locals.
    ...& 26% (up 22%) in Newark on June 5th, apparently with the worst candidate possible

    But why obsess about real votes when weighted averages of politically motivated volunteers are published every day?

    ...using out of date 3 party models

    (this applies to high UKIP scores as well as low ones, but no one ever mentions those without instinctively questioning/dismissing the methodology)
    Except you ignored the real votes when the NNESV figures showed UKIP falling from last year.
    Not real votes actually are they? I thought they were an extrapolation of the real votes as if they were countrywide?

    And I thought that was the 18% which another Dave just quoted?
    They are based on real votes and have been very useful in the past, and they showed a drop for UKIP.
    Theyre not real votes though, so I didn't ignore them
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    Tonights YG eD IS Crap is PM

    LAB 354 CON 252 LD 18 (UKPR) Ed is crap over 100 seats ahead of Dave is crappers sucessor

    302 DAYS TO GO

    8 DAYS TO GO (Sheffield, 1/4/92).

    1992 Last ever Tory Majority Gov't?
    Not the strongest riposte ever seen on this forum.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    From the Times and should concern Nick Palmer, because I can't see too many plebs attending this

    By the time guests at Labour’s gala dinner fall out of the Roundhouse in north London next week, the party’s campaign planners will hope to have made at least a dent in the Tories’ huge lead in gathering private donations.

    Attendees are paying from £400 for a seat to £15,000 for a “premium table”, which comes complete with a “political host” from the higher ranks of the Labour Party, photos of the event and a plum spot in the room. Guests can also pay just £100 to attend the after-party.


    .....Insiders said Labour’s debts, are now down to around £4 million. But the money spent on servicing the loans will deplete the party’s power to match the Tories’ election spending, especially now that Lord Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, has cleared his party’s debts.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    USA doing their best England impression... only just staying in this.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Also from the Times

    The Conservatives will have up to three times as much money as Labour to spend in the run-up to the next election, senior party figures have warned

    Drastic changes to the way Ed Miliband’s party will fight the next election are being made to to minimise the effect of the Tories’ extra millions.

    Spending on direct mailings and poster campaigns are being scaled back to focus resources on a string of local campaigns in key seats as well as targeting voters online.

    While Labour planners are hopeful that they will be able to spend more than the £8 million deployed during the 2010 campaign, they have accepted that their funds will be dwarfed by the Tories’ coffers.

    The Conservatives are expected to reach the maximum £19.5 million that can be spent in the year running up to an election.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4135972.ece
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    From the Times and should concern Nick Palmer, because I can't see too many plebs attending this

    By the time guests at Labour’s gala dinner fall out of the Roundhouse in north London next week, the party’s campaign planners will hope to have made at least a dent in the Tories’ huge lead in gathering private donations.

    Attendees are paying from £400 for a seat to £15,000 for a “premium table”, which comes complete with a “political host” from the higher ranks of the Labour Party, photos of the event and a plum spot in the room. Guests can also pay just £100 to attend the after-party.


    .....Insiders said Labour’s debts, are now down to around £4 million. But the money spent on servicing the loans will deplete the party’s power to match the Tories’ election spending, especially now that Lord Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, has cleared his party’s debts.

    On the night of the WC semi ? Bunch of weirdos..
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    From the Times and should concern Nick Palmer, because I can't see too many plebs attending this

    By the time guests at Labour’s gala dinner fall out of the Roundhouse in north London next week, the party’s campaign planners will hope to have made at least a dent in the Tories’ huge lead in gathering private donations.

    Attendees are paying from £400 for a seat to £15,000 for a “premium table”, which comes complete with a “political host” from the higher ranks of the Labour Party, photos of the event and a plum spot in the room. Guests can also pay just £100 to attend the after-party.


    .....Insiders said Labour’s debts, are now down to around £4 million. But the money spent on servicing the loans will deplete the party’s power to match the Tories’ election spending, especially now that Lord Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, has cleared his party’s debts.

    Party of the working class?

    I wonder if they will have a "normal" person let in for free on each table a la the ordinary employee in the boardroom idea?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Today's Times reports that only a handful of Labour MPs turned up for the annual PLP dinner.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited July 2014
    Even though I've backed America to qualify, can someone please score, don't take it to extra time and penalties, I want an early night.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,116
    Socrates said:

    USA doing their best England impression... only just staying in this.

    England didn't reach the 2nd round...
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    JackW said:

    Perhaps @Paul_Mid_Beds has a point ....

    I mean, there are some books !! ..... would you even wish your wife or your servants to read?

    or indeed one's mother!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    That was the worst offside decision of the competition.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,116
    Extra time Belgium v. USA
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,116


    By the time guests at Labour’s gala dinner fall out of the Roundhouse in north London next week, the party’s campaign planners will hope to have made at least a dent in the Tories’ huge lead in gathering private donations.

    The Roundhouse former railway shed is easily visible from the train on the way in and out of London Euston.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    What happened to Rafa Nadal?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Can Klinsmann sub himself on ?

    He'd have absolubtely buried that one.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Captain Scarlet ‏@rigamark 10m

    USA - Belgium.

    The first time I see the US attack a country with no oil.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    What happened to Rafa Nadal?

    Gubbed @ 1.04
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 891
    Indonesia game

    Evening all,

    For those of you who'd like to take part in the very small game for the world's 4th-biggest country, the game is below, entries close 9pm next Tuesday:

    http://www.electiongame.co.uk/indonesia14/

    Many thanks,

    DC
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118


    By the time guests at Labour’s gala dinner fall out of the Roundhouse in north London next week, the party’s campaign planners will hope to have made at least a dent in the Tories’ huge lead in gathering private donations.

    The Roundhouse former railway shed is easily visible from the train on the way in and out of London Euston.
    Actually the Roundhouse is a good parallel with the Labour Party

    Once a place where working class kids went to punk gigs, railing against the establishment, now a redeveloped plush venue for middle aged/middle class luvvies
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    This "Origi" looks decent - anyone signed him ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,116

    Captain Scarlet ‏@rigamark 10m

    USA - Belgium.

    The first time I see the US attack a country with no oil.

    He must have missed US victories against England in 1950 and 1993 :)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959


    By the time guests at Labour’s gala dinner fall out of the Roundhouse in north London next week, the party’s campaign planners will hope to have made at least a dent in the Tories’ huge lead in gathering private donations.

    The Roundhouse former railway shed is easily visible from the train on the way in and out of London Euston.
    They should have held it in Searcys in St Pancras station.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,116
    Oh well, Belgium score...
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Pulpstar said:

    This "Origi" looks decent - anyone signed him ?

    Liverpool or Arsenal after him.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited July 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    This "Origi" looks decent - anyone signed him ?

    Liverpool - Once his world cup is over, we're going to loan him back to Lille for next season.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2014
    Watched the whole match so far apart from the first 3 minutes of extra time...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Sceptic tanks broken down.
This discussion has been closed.