Final result from yesterday , North Herts DC Hitchwood/Offa/Hoo Con hold
Con 734 UKIP 203 Lab 116 Green 74 Lib Dem 57
Summary
Labour hold 3 ( 1 Penistone West a marginal seat which is usually Conservative ) Conservatives hold 2 ( 1 Torridge widely expected to be a UKIP gain ) Lib Dem gain 1 from Conservative ( widely expected to be a Meb Ker gain )
The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.
And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.
UK 57.5 USA 57.3 Ireland 55.3 Spain 54.6 Italy 52.6 Netherlands 52.3 Germany 52.0 Japan 51.5 India 51.5 China 50.7 Poland 50.3 Russia 49.1 Brazil 48.7 South Korea 48.4 France 48.2
Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
Many congratulations TSE, I bow before you. I actually had a couple of quid on myself, so fingers crossed!
Two other good reasons to do this: 1) Juncker has been complaining that the member states aren't sending him enough women. He'd be likely to give her a high-ranking job if he could be persuaded she would actually do it properly instead of grandstanding to the British press. 2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.
Two other good reasons to do this: 1) Juncker has been complaining that the member states aren't sending him enough women. He'd be likely to give her a high-ranking job if he could be persuaded she would actually do it properly instead of grandstanding to the British press. 2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.
I have just read Melvyn Bragg's latest email newsletter that accompanies his excellent weekly programme, "In Our Time". In it he says it is to be the last one as the BBC have decided it is no longer affordable. FFS! How much does it cost to have someone, once a week, type up a thousand words and hit the send button? The BBC sent how many people to Brazil for the football? But it can't afford an hour of a clerk-typist's time once a week. Bah.
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.
But it does this so clumsily people would think he is frit.
I don't think they would. There hasn't been much in the media about a potential leadership challenge by Theresa May; They prefer talking about Boris. It only seems like a serious possibility to us because we're very politically nerdy, and also because Tim, who was very sharp when it came to handicapping the other side, used to post about the idea.
""am i the only one who noticed england seems to have Balance today. hopefully they can go a few sessions on the Trott without losing wickets and make the indians Cook under pressure. if these two Root themselves in until the Bell tomorrow, the they will have Broad smiles after closing down indias Prior two days performance."
The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.
And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.
UK 57.5 USA 57.3 Ireland 55.3 Spain 54.6 Italy 52.6 Netherlands 52.3 Germany 52.0 Japan 51.5 India 51.5 China 50.7 Poland 50.3 Russia 49.1 Brazil 48.7 South Korea 48.4 France 48.2
PMIs are backward looking.
They're normally considered leading indicators, although no forward looking indicator is free from taking into account past and present conditions, simply because they impact on business decisions.
Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million
Compared with how things stood with Suarez one year ago, coupled with the player's recent behaviour, this looks like a good bit of business for Liverpool, grateful thanks are due to Rodgers.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1? The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
No, first time incumbent.
first time unpopular incumbent
Based on? The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1? The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
No, first time incumbent.
first time unpopular incumbent
Based on? The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.
Him driving two of the Conservative councillors into defecting to the Lib Dems losing the Conservatives overall control of the council .
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Not a sniff lol.
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favourites
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Not a sniff lol.
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favourites
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
I'd Like Nadhim Zahawi to get a job somewhere. He's very good at doing the hard yards, such as going on QT, or appearing on TV to defend controversial policies. Not sure he's senior minister material, but a good person to have in a tight corner.
LOL...but seriously, nobody immediately comes to mind. And it has to be a heavy hitter.I'm sure Sajid Javed would be good, but too early.
Sajid Javed ought to go far, definitely a potential party leader and if he is lucky in the cycle PM. However, I think Mr. Javed will get bored by politics before he gets to the top of the greasy pole.
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1? The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
No, first time incumbent.
first time unpopular incumbent
Based on? The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.
Lucky for the LibDems Clegg seems to have a master plan to unite them...
Cricket - the Draw lay looks a reasonable each-way bet at 1.3. These are two losing teams (England recently, India specifically away from home) and you'd have to think that one of them can find a way to screw this up. England could be all out for 270 or 670 here.
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Not a sniff lol.
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favourites
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
Labour are the kings of apathy surely !
Labour people often have better things to do with their time - such as going to work. Higher proportion of supporters in work than any other party ;-)
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Not a sniff lol.
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favourites
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
"None of these portfolios is likely to go to Britain. You don't reward someone who is against you"
The latest tremor over Portugal just makes me want to walk out the door and leave Germany to it.
And the ''who gives a f8ck, its only Europe''reaction in the markets says it all. This union is becoming increasingly irrelevant and is wilfully ignoring those telling it that, whilst mouthing mendacious platitudes to try and keep the sceptics on side.
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
Plenty of claret available in Hillhead, even in '82. Whether it was Woy quality is another matter.
No it really wasn't (although as a trainee solicitor at the time I really didn't know any better).
'82 was a really rather good year for claret. It's what I grew up on after the '76 ran out
If May did go to Brussels, who do the panel think would get the Home Sec job??
May is the woman that's been plotting to hand over a whole bunch of justice matters to Brussels, including abolishing many long-standing British protections for suspects. She'd be a terrible Commissioner.
Depends if you want them to stay against you or whether you would like them to come into the fold. If the UK sends a "big-beast" to Brussels and Juncker gives them a trivial job or the EU Parliament rejects a commission because it contains the UK rep in a big job then might that not be an indicator that it it is time for us to go and our "partners" are expecting us to go, maybe even ushering us to the exit.
So far, so plausible: there is a reason for the data retention regime of the 2009 Regulations to be placed on a firmer statutory footing following the ECJ decision.
But this is not what the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (which has the unfortunate acronym DRIP) is doing; the DRIP Bill is going further than dealing with the ECJ decision. In effect, the UK government is using the ECJ decision as a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation. And the UK government has even managed to get the main opposition party to nod along with this. It is a remarkable and cynical political exercise.
It's unbelievable the way they're trying to rush this through.
Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million
Compared with how things stood with Suarez one year ago, coupled with the player's recent behaviour, this looks like a good bit of business for Liverpool, grateful thanks are due to Rodgers.
They are, the way Brendan Rodgers has turned Jordan Henderson into the Mackem Messi is testament to his coaching skills.
I'm not sure it's a good footballing move for Suarez though.
At Liverpool, the team was designed around him and to get the best out of him.
At Barca, he's not going to be top dog, or even second dog.
He'll probably be third after Messi and Neymar.
How's he going to react to that?
The one thing that is guaranteed is that Liverpool are going to draw Barca in the Champs league this season.
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
Plenty of claret available in Hillhead, even in '82. Whether it was Woy quality is another matter.
No it really wasn't (although as a trainee solicitor at the time I really didn't know any better).
'82 was a really rather good year for claret. It's what I grew up on after the '76 ran out
?? It (the '82s) wouldn't have been ready for, say, 20 years so surely the dates don't quite work, Charles? Unless of course you are 30 yrs old. Which you may be...
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
Not even Mike "I tipped Obama at 50-1" Smithson has a perfect record and Rod's record at predicting British political trends is better than many on here.
Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.
Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.
Of course he knows about the 2016 sunset clause. You think any of this is going to get repealed in 2016? It'll be the same move as this one: To allow X to continue doing the work they're currently doing, we need to renew everything in the old thing, plus throw in a load more while pretending it's the same.
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Not a sniff lol.
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favourites
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
Labour are the kings of apathy surely !
Labour people often have better things to do with their time - such as going to work. Higher proportion of supporters in work than any other party ;-)
Strange as they also have a much higher percentage of wasters and layabouts with their mittens out looking for my money as well. Must be a broad church.
Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.
The 2016 sunset clause is the same trick pulled by George Bush when slashing taxes. By the time 2016 rolls around you lot will be arguing that your opponents and wanting to change the law to make things easier for terrorists, as the GOP said the Democrats wanted to raise taxes.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
I didn't forecast it. I said it looked like a value bet.
Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.
The 2016 sunset clause is the same trick pulled by George Bush when slashing taxes. By the time 2016 rolls around you lot will be arguing that your opponents and wanting to change the law to make things easier for terrorists, as the GOP said the Democrats wanted to raise taxes.
It's actually worse than that, because at that point you _have_ to pass a new law, so you get another of these emergencies to exploit to pass a load more legislation that you didn't dare try sneak through in the last emergency.
Of course he knows about the 2016 sunset clause. You think any of this is going to get repealed in 2016? It'll be the same move as this one: To allow X to continue doing the work they're going, we need to renew everything in the old thing, plus throw in a load more while pretending it's the same.
Yes, of course he knows about it. He deliberately chose not to mention it, because it completely blows out of the water his hyperbole about "a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation". We now have a period of two years of scrutiny and deliberation.
So he's not stupid, just pursuing a political agenda.
Still, it's useful article nonetheless. I found the explanation very helpful in understanding why the government has been persuaded that these changes are necessary.
Of course he knows about the 2016 sunset clause. You think any of this is going to get repealed in 2016? It'll be the same move as this one: To allow X to continue doing the work they're going, we need to renew everything in the old thing, plus throw in a load more while pretending it's the same.
Yes, of course he knows about it. He deliberately chose not to mention it, because it completely blows out of the water his hyperbole about "a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation". We now have a period of two years of scrutiny and deliberation.
So he's not stupid, just pursuing a political agenda.
Still, it's useful article nonetheless. I found the explanation very helpful in understanding why the government has been persuaded that these changes are necessary.
You should have the "scrutiny and deliberation" BEFORE the law is passed not afterwards.
This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
I didn't forecast it. I said it looked like a value bet.
You forecast it!
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213 May 25 Labour on the way to third place nationally after that result...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213 May 25 edited May 25 Casino_Royale said: » show previous quotes How do you calculate? Tories were 12% ahead of Lab in 2009. Looks like 1% now after 2 results. Lab need a >6% Con-Lab swing to beat the Tories.
Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.
The 2016 sunset clause is the same trick pulled by George Bush when slashing taxes. By the time 2016 rolls around you lot will be arguing that your opponents and wanting to change the law to make things easier for terrorists, as the GOP said the Democrats wanted to raise taxes.
Terrorists. paedophiles, tax avoiders (so potentially anyone with a bank account).
This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
Well, that's a nice balanced, well-argued point. It seems you are another of those who work backwards from assuming all politicians are mendacious incompetents, and that therefore the bill must be bad. It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
Not even Mike "I tipped Obama at 50-1" Smithson has a perfect record and Rod's record at predicting British political trends is better than many on here.
No-one has a perfect record. I was merely pointing out that people would be foolish to put all their faith in the predictions of one individual.
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats – not that I see any great purpose to, or place any great faith in, his model either.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
I didn't forecast it. I said it looked like a value bet.
You forecast it!
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213 May 25 Labour on the way to third place nationally after that result...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213 May 25 edited May 25 Casino_Royale said: » show previous quotes How do you calculate? Tories were 12% ahead of Lab in 2009. Looks like 1% now after 2 results. Lab need a >6% Con-Lab swing to beat the Tories.
Sky have voteshare C -2.8, Lab 8.2.
Not enough.
That's a betting tip based on results at that moment. One that narrowly failed to come off. If you want a proper forecast, the next time Labour get a lead of over 5% in two polls, BobaFett will start trumping on about a trend. Sadly, there is no value in the betting on this market.
Nice to see the Indians continue to get inside edges given with no chance of overturn due to their inexplicable denial of DRS. I say 'inexplicable'....
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.
Not even Mike "I tipped Obama at 50-1" Smithson has a perfect record and Rod's record at predicting British political trends is better than many on here.
No-one has a perfect record. I was merely pointing out that people would be foolish to put all their faith in the predictions of one individual.
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats – not that I see any great purpose to, or place any great faith in, his model either.
If Fishers model came off as shown today, the country would be ungovernable and, fortunately, given his extra one seat, Deadhand Ed would cop the blame when the ship went down. Something nice in the midst of chaos.
Racing drivers could roar through the streets of London in just a year under laws being rushed through by David Cameron.
Mayor Boris Johnson welcomed the chance for a “spectacular” Monaco-style Grand Prix in the capital, potentially generating millions of pounds in fees and sponsorship.
It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
Out of interest do you think that updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000 is an emergency that doesn't have time to be considered like a normal piece of legislation before it's enacted?
PS. When we were speculating on this the other day Richard adorably believed that the emergency would be some kind of actual terrorist emergency or something, rather than a piece of legislation that looked illegal when it was passed being officially found to be illegal three months ago.
You should have the "scrutiny and deliberation" BEFORE the law is passed not afterwards.
Indeed. The argument that a law must be passed in order for it to be subject to scrutiny is one of the most bizarre yet made on this site by the authoritarians. Their casuistry surpasses even the Jesuits.
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
This whole thing is going to stoke up the 'they're everywhere!' Brigade Paedogeddon is upon us
Hardly everywhere. This scandal seems to be rather geographically contained -the only problem being it's in our seat of government.
Three months and swing back will be starting to crank into gear and I can start posting amusingly damning predictions for Ed and co. I shall be more unbearable than ever, and you'll all love it and despair. Aneurin Bevin, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson, Keir Hardie, can you hear me Keir Hardie? Your boys took one hell of a beating!
@dyedwoolie Not that I take much notice of cricket, but didn't one of the Indian players also get given out, when DRS would have shown him not out? Swings and roundabouts? Or perhaps you have an inborn sense of entitlement?
Out of interest do you think that updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000 is an emergency that doesn't have time to be considered like a normal piece of legislation before it's enacted?
No I don't. It is something which the government has been indicating for a long while was necessary. No doubt they have been discussing the exact scope of it for a while.
If the argument is that this Bill should have been brought in earlier, then, yes, OK, fair enough, that is a valid point. I don't know why it wasn't, but I'd hazard a guess that it is related to the New Politics, Parties Working Together, and all that other hung-parliament stuff which makes is harder to govern.
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
This whole thing is going to stoke up the 'they're everywhere!' Brigade Paedogeddon is upon us
Hardly everywhere. This scandal seems to be rather geographically contained -the only problem being it's in our seat of government.
That's my point. There's a serious problem, but the shrieking paedophobes will be convincing us it's paedogeddon and every bush must be nuked and every park patrolled by armed guards (with appropriate CRB checks of course) The nation loves hysteria.
It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
Out of interest do you think that updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000 is an emergency that doesn't have time to be considered like a normal piece of legislation before it's enacted?
PS. When we were speculating on this the other day Richard adorably believed that the emergency would be some kind of actual terrorist emergency or something, rather than a piece of legislation that looked illegal when it was passed being found to be illegal three months ago.
I don't know much about the new law, so can't comment upon the merits of it, however what has interested me is that Ed Miliband is backing the proposals.
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/
This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
Well, that's a nice balanced, well-argued point. It seems you are another of those who work backwards from assuming all politicians are mendacious incompetents, and that therefore the bill must be bad. It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
It's funny how the definition just so happens to expand to give the government more power. Pure coincidence!
@dyedwoolie Not that I take much notice of cricket, but didn't one of the Indian players also get given out, when DRS would have shown him not out? Swings and roundabouts? Or perhaps you have an inborn sense of entitlement?
And two or three got off when they should have been out. The difference being, England supports the use of technology to make the game fairer and less prone to 'events'. India doesn't.
This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
Well, that's a nice balanced, well-argued point. It seems you are another of those who work backwards from assuming all politicians are mendacious incompetents, and that therefore the bill must be bad. It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
I do not assume that. I form my opinion on the facts. I see a bad law being rushed through; I see spurious arguments being used to justify it; I look at similar laws rushed through - and their consequences; I see very little evidence of Parliamentarians placing any value on the liberties of the citizen or the need to balance our rights and the power of the state; and I draw my conclusions from this.
I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing. It seems to me to be a stance which flies in the face of recent and not so recent history.
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats
No it doesn't.
It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.
And as the polls show PM Ed Miliband headed for a 97 style wipeout, he can only hoarsely exclaim through the tears and bacon 'if only we hadn't gained Broxtowe'
@dyedwoolie Accepting the umpires decision is just not "cricket" then? How very English, morality fits where it touches.
Bwahahahaha. Indeed. And yes, I am very English. And quite proud of the fact. And morality, in any case, is entirely subjective and personal. There is no categorical imperative here. In the fine words of Nate Ruess I'll die for my own sins, thanks a lot, We'll rise up ourselves, thanks for nothing at all
Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million
Compared with how things stood with Suarez one year ago, coupled with the player's recent behaviour, this looks like a good bit of business for Liverpool, grateful thanks are due to Rodgers.
They are, the way Brendan Rodgers has turned Jordan Henderson into the Mackem Messi is testament to his coaching skills.
I'm not sure it's a good footballing move for Suarez though.
At Liverpool, the team was designed around him and to get the best out of him.
At Barca, he's not going to be top dog, or even second dog.
He'll probably be third after Messi and Neymar.
How's he going to react to that?
The one thing that is guaranteed is that Liverpool are going to draw Barca in the Champs league this season.
I hope they draw Juventus. Henderson is just a hard running typical English player, Scousers had their chance and blew it. There won't be another one in the near future.
I agree, but that is not anything new. With the odd exception here and there we have always been governed by mendacious incompetents. What do you find so shocking about this new law?
The interception by HMG of the content of communication has always gone on and is arguably better governed now than at any time in our history. The use of so-called metadata (i.e. who is talking to who and where they are as opposed to what they are saying) has also been of some use in public protection and the detection of crime (though these days it is far less useful than perhaps HMG would have us believe). Both of these activities have to go on. The question is really about authorisation and oversight, oh, and who gets access to the data (do local councils, the ambulance service and the Charity Commission to name but three actually need to know?).
As far as I can see the new bill does not make the situation any worse than it was and that was better than before RIPA was passed. So why the fuss?
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/
I'm not sure exactly what the opposition opposed last time - I don't think they were particularly opposed to some of the really bad legislation that was passed during the worst period with the Blair Home Secretaries after 9/11?
Either way, Labour are generally more exposed on security issues and need to be more worried about looking weak, in the same way that the Tories are more exposed on the NHS.
The other political angle here is that it probably helps Labour for the LibDems to cut off any remaining limbs.
I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing.
Yes, I do believe that most politicians, of all parties, are decent. honourable, honest, and are genuinely trying to do the best for the country. That's hardly an unreasonable view.
In this particular case, it's not just what the government is doing, it is all the main political parties. You can be as cynical as you like, but it is stretching credulity well beyond breaking point to conclude that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, William Hague, and all the other senior politicians from all parties who agree that this needs to be done, and who are overseen in this by a Select Committee chaired by Ming Campbell, are engaged in some collective conspiracy against our liberties for no good reason.
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats
No it doesn't.
It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.
And as the polls show PM Ed Miliband headed for a 97 style wipeout, he can only hoarsely exclaim through the tears and bacon 'if only we hadn't gained Broxtowe'
You must be looking at some different polls to the ones I'm seeing !
I'm not sure exactly what the opposition opposed last time - I don't think they were particularly opposed to some of the really bad legislation that was passed during the worst period with the Blair Home Secretaries after 9/11?
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/
I'm not sure exactly what the opposition opposed last time - I don't think they were particularly opposed to some of the really bad legislation that was passed during the worst period with the Blair Home Secretaries after 9/11?
Either way, Labour are generally more exposed on security issues and need to be more worried about looking weak, in the same way that the Tories are more exposed on the NHS.
The other political angle here is that it probably helps Labour for the LibDems to cut off any remaining limbs.
Comments
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Con 734 UKIP 203 Lab 116 Green 74 Lib Dem 57
Summary
Labour hold 3 ( 1 Penistone West a marginal seat which is usually Conservative ) Conservatives hold 2 ( 1 Torridge widely expected to be a UKIP gain ) Lib Dem gain 1 from Conservative ( widely expected to be a Meb Ker gain )
1) Juncker has been complaining that the member states aren't sending him enough women. He'd be likely to give her a high-ranking job if he could be persuaded she would actually do it properly instead of grandstanding to the British press.
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.
Ah feck it, I'll stick a tenner on her at 25/1
I have just read Melvyn Bragg's latest email newsletter that accompanies his excellent weekly programme, "In Our Time". In it he says it is to be the last one as the BBC have decided it is no longer affordable. FFS! How much does it cost to have someone, once a week, type up a thousand words and hit the send button? The BBC sent how many people to Brazil for the football? But it can't afford an hour of a clerk-typist's time once a week. Bah.
""am i the only one who noticed england seems to have Balance today. hopefully they can go a few sessions on the Trott without losing wickets and make the indians Cook under pressure. if these two Root themselves in until the Bell tomorrow, the they will have Broad smiles after closing down indias Prior two days performance."
#FullOfSadness #FuckOffBarcelona.
When #mufc sold Ronaldo, someone at club said: "It was a rocky marriage but the sex was great."
Analogy works even better for Suarez at #LFC
Titi Camara @TitiCamara22 · Jul 7
When I left Liverpool not many people thought I could have been replaced. Liverpool will survive without Suarez
Liverpool fans always remember Titi with fondness.
Right now
-4.75 England
+140.70 India
-11.91 Draw
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
LOL...but seriously, nobody immediately comes to mind. And it has to be a heavy hitter.I'm sure Sajid Javed would be good, but too early.
The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
Not for me, Thanks !
sort out the messat DWP.True.
I'd Like Nadhim Zahawi to get a job somewhere. He's very good at doing the hard yards, such as going on QT, or appearing on TV to defend controversial policies. Not sure he's senior minister material, but a good person to have in a tight corner.
Very senior minister material for me, not sure he has the charisma to be leader in an increasingly presidential age.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/juncker-may-punish-cameron-top-job-carve-303414
The latest tremor over Portugal just makes me want to walk out the door and leave Germany to it.
And the ''who gives a f8ck, its only Europe''reaction in the markets says it all. This union is becoming increasingly irrelevant and is wilfully ignoring those telling it that, whilst mouthing mendacious platitudes to try and keep the sceptics on side.
So far, so plausible: there is a reason for the data retention regime of the 2009 Regulations to be placed on a firmer statutory footing following the ECJ decision.
But this is not what the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (which has the unfortunate acronym DRIP) is doing; the DRIP Bill is going further than dealing with the ECJ decision. In effect, the UK government is using the ECJ decision as a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation. And the UK government has even managed to get the main opposition party to nod along with this. It is a remarkable and cynical political exercise.
It's unbelievable the way they're trying to rush this through.
I'm not sure it's a good footballing move for Suarez though.
At Liverpool, the team was designed around him and to get the best out of him.
At Barca, he's not going to be top dog, or even second dog.
He'll probably be third after Messi and Neymar.
How's he going to react to that?
The one thing that is guaranteed is that Liverpool are going to draw Barca in the Champs league this season.
Must be a broad church.
So he's not stupid, just pursuing a political agenda.
Still, it's useful article nonetheless. I found the explanation very helpful in understanding why the government has been persuaded that these changes are necessary.
This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213
May 25
Labour on the way to third place nationally after that result...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213
May 25 edited May 25
Casino_Royale said:
» show previous quotes
How do you calculate?
Tories were 12% ahead of Lab in 2009. Looks like 1% now after 2 results. Lab need a >6% Con-Lab swing to beat the Tories.
Sky have voteshare C -2.8, Lab 8.2.
Not enough.
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats – not that I see any great purpose to, or place any great faith in, his model either.
If you want a proper forecast, the next time Labour get a lead of over 5% in two polls, BobaFett will start trumping on about a trend.
Sadly, there is no value in the betting on this market.
Something nice in the midst of chaos.
Racing drivers could roar through the streets of London in just a year under laws being rushed through by David Cameron.
Mayor Boris Johnson welcomed the chance for a “spectacular” Monaco-style Grand Prix in the capital, potentially generating millions of pounds in fees and sponsorship.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/new-law-could-see-f1-in-london-9600359.html
PS. When we were speculating on this the other day Richard adorably believed that the emergency would be some kind of actual terrorist emergency or something, rather than a piece of legislation that looked illegal when it was passed being officially found to be illegal three months ago.
Aneurin Bevin, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson, Keir Hardie, can you hear me Keir Hardie? Your boys took one hell of a beating!
Not that I take much notice of cricket, but didn't one of the Indian players also get given out, when DRS would have shown him not out?
Swings and roundabouts? Or perhaps you have an inborn sense of entitlement?
If the argument is that this Bill should have been brought in earlier, then, yes, OK, fair enough, that is a valid point. I don't know why it wasn't, but I'd hazard a guess that it is related to the New Politics, Parties Working Together, and all that other hung-parliament stuff which makes is harder to govern.
The nation loves hysteria.
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/
The difference being, England supports the use of technology to make the game fairer and less prone to 'events'. India doesn't.
I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing. It seems to me to be a stance which flies in the face of recent and not so recent history.
Accepting the umpires decision is just not "cricket" then?
How very English, morality fits where it touches.
I give up.
And yes, I am very English. And quite proud of the fact. And morality, in any case, is entirely subjective and personal. There is no categorical imperative here.
In the fine words of Nate Ruess
I'll die for my own sins, thanks a lot,
We'll rise up ourselves, thanks for nothing at all
"We are governed by mendacious incompetents."
I agree, but that is not anything new. With the odd exception here and there we have always been governed by mendacious incompetents. What do you find so shocking about this new law?
The interception by HMG of the content of communication has always gone on and is arguably better governed now than at any time in our history. The use of so-called metadata (i.e. who is talking to who and where they are as opposed to what they are saying) has also been of some use in public protection and the detection of crime (though these days it is far less useful than perhaps HMG would have us believe). Both of these activities have to go on. The question is really about authorisation and oversight, oh, and who gets access to the data (do local councils, the ambulance service and the Charity Commission to name but three actually need to know?).
As far as I can see the new bill does not make the situation any worse than it was and that was better than before RIPA was passed. So why the fuss?
Your team's sin appears to have been agreeing to no DRS,
Stop whining, you sound like a Tory when you do. ;-)
Either way, Labour are generally more exposed on security issues and need to be more worried about looking weak, in the same way that the Tories are more exposed on the NHS.
The other political angle here is that it probably helps Labour for the LibDems to cut off any remaining limbs.
No need to give up just yet.
In this particular case, it's not just what the government is doing, it is all the main political parties. You can be as cynical as you like, but it is stretching credulity well beyond breaking point to conclude that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, William Hague, and all the other senior politicians from all parties who agree that this needs to be done, and who are overseen in this by a Select Committee chaired by Ming Campbell, are engaged in some collective conspiracy against our liberties for no good reason.
Heaven fore fend that should ever happen!