Daniel Hewitt @DanielHewittITV 13m13 minutes ago The heavens have opened In Oldham, a downpour of biblical proportions. Turnout is going to be very, very low.
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
Because he isn't, thats the point here. He has formed an LLC to put the money into.
I am sure he is going to do a lot for good causes, but it isn't a straight give away as the PR would suggest.
The Windors? Before them the Hanoverians? You wouldn't Charles was a shining example, would you?
Edward III was a much better king than his Dad (unless you were French of course). Henry IV was a bit of a shit but his boy was very good (again unless you were French). Charles II was a better in the job that Charles I (but then so would Mad Jock McMad winner of Mr. Madman competition 1640 had he been given the chance). Winston Churchill was a rather more successful politician than his father (even if you were French - which makes a change).
One can always find examples of political dynasties when the son does better than the father or the reverse if you want.
Hmmm. Always exceptions, I agree. Agree about Charles II on all counts. Could argue that George VI did a better job as the father of the next Monarch than his father.
I am still trying to work that out, Mr. C. George IV was succeeded by his brother (who was only three years his junior) so he didn't father the next monarch. So by not producing an heir to the throne he did better than his father who produced him. I have a got that right?
Er, No. George VI was the son of George V, who is alleged to have said that he was afraid of his father and he was going to make damn sure his sons were afraid of him. Which resulted in Edward's behaviour and George VI's stammer. George VI of course only had daughters and, one way and another seems to have instilled a sense of duty into them, although it went awry in the case of his younger daiughter.
I do apologise, Mr. Cole. I read George IV not George VI in your original post. Sorry about that.
I quite take your point now and agree that George V was a bit of an odd cove (he last words were reputed to have been "Bugger Bognor") and who suffered under the lash of Queen Victoria's dysfunctional family (I am sure the old girl was off her head or, maybe, just a plain selfish old bitch).
I also think it a tragedy that George VI died so young.
Mr Lama, I suspected that was the case, and in principle we are in agreement Charitably I would suggest that Victoria's untimely widowhood derailed her, and the fact that the future Edward VII was chronically unable to keep it in his trousers didn't help! George V's "Bugger Bognor" statement was allegedly in reponse to a suggestion that he go there for the sea air. Or so I understand!
"Going badly" could mean many things other than what you describe. Assads forces or the Russians downing RAF planes, ground troops going in and getting bogged down in scrappy house to house fighting, prisoners being held hostage, or simply the war weariness that comes on the public where there are deaths of UK forces being read out before PMQs each week.
One of the problems of a limited mandate as this is that there is plenty of time for support to slip before we do send in the ground troops. If we are to make war, then we should have decided to go to war using unlimited force .
What matters though is how those minorities vote not their favourability ratings.
Romney might have had a -11 favourables with Latinos, but in the end only 1 in 4 voted for him, he lost them by 44 points. And Trump regularly gets more votes than Rubio with Latinos in the opinion polls, despite the huge gap.
It simply illustrates that having high favourables in a voting group that will never vote for you anyway is a waste of time.
If rain puts people off voting, as is accepted wisdom, people had best hope there isn't heavy rain during the PCC elections next year. Although suppose only the very dedicated did in any case, but if it impacts it further it might undermine the role. Which I would not mind in the least, but even so.
I remember the last PCC elections. When I voted around 6pm, I was the first voter they had seen for getting on for 90 minutes.
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
Because he isn't, thats the point here. He has formed an LLC to put the money into.
I am sure he is going to do a lot for good causes, but it isn't a straight give away as the PR would suggest.
Using an LLC structure he is able to engage in lobbying.
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
He's giving it to his own charity foundation which he controls, he can now own 99% of Facebook from his own charity but not paying any taxes on it. It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm. Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
If rain puts people off voting, as is accepted wisdom, people had best hope there isn't heavy rain during the PCC elections next year. Although suppose only the very dedicated did in any case, but if it impacts it further it might undermine the role. Which I would not mind in the least, but even so.
I remember the last PCC elections. When I voted around 6pm, I was the first voter they had seen for getting on for 90 minutes.
I think there were one or two polling stations in the country that saw literally no-one. I hope they allow poll clerks to bring books with them.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Alex Salmond refuses to apologise for saying Tony Benn would be "birling in his grave" at his son Hilary's Syria speech.
Why should he apologise.
He's spot on the money. Tony Benn would be devastated to see his son vote to send British troops into harms way without any benefit from that action and the likely killing of plenty more civilians.
Hilary is a disgrace to his family name. He should be the first name on the Labour cull. They can't continue with a party filled with Red Tories. They know where that will take them, after all, Scotland will be fresh in their minds.
On the other hand, here's the impartial judgement of someone writing more than a year ago:
Who to believe, Alex Salmond or someone who knew him personally for many years?
It is perfectly consistent for someone to offer their offspring completely free reign in their life choices but still be disappointed at some of the choices they might make. There is a considerable difference between telling and hoping.
Either Benn's entire political life was one of hypocrisy and ideas he did not believe in or he would be disappointed that. while trying to persuade the public in general, he failed to even persuade his own son.
Long walk from '[Tony Benn] would be disappointed' to 'Hilary is a disgrace to his family name', but entirely expected.
I think he'd be quite pleased that his son was his own man.
Benn was alive when his son voted for the Iraq War and did not disown him
I am a bit surprised that people from the Corbyn wing have not thrown that at Benn rather more forcefully in the context of everything else that has been happening. How did he justify supporting a war of British and American aggression given the lack of UN support? Many would argue that the 2003 attack rather mirrored the Fascist dictators he spent time condemning in his speech. Perhaps this is yet to come.
Indeed, in retrospect that was the wrong call but it was Cabinet Collective Responsibility at the time which was why Cook and Short resigned
Clare Short only resigned later - had she done so at the same time as Cook it is likely that Blair would have been much more damaged at the time - and the Labour rebellion even greater.
What exactly did Cameron say? I thought he said words along the lines of:
"Don't vote "No" with terrorist sympathisers"
But that does not mean he implied everyone voting "No" was a terrorist sympathiser - just that SOME of the people voting "No" were terrorist sympathisers.
If it is proven to be terrorism, I wonder if this might push Trump over the line.
It would be the biggest terror attack on the US homeland since 9/11
It's a very odd target for a terrorist attack, though.
Perhaps they were planning on staging an attack somewhere else, but the red mist of anger descended and the office party became a new target?
Possibly, yes. Or maybe they were freelancers acting on their own initiative rather than directly controlled by some organisation. That is one of the most difficult scenarios for the security services.
Last night ISIS or whatever we are meant to call them said they were not responsible but welcomed the attack
I didn't post it as it was late and I didn't want to argue / isn't in my interests to cause trouble with the people saying it was white supremacists
These kind of attacks are the ones I fear now we are bombing Syria or at least the anger it stokes up within parts of the muslim population. Obviously ISIS we're going to try and bomb us anyway
Let me see if I have this straight. They attack us, but the West shouldn't retaliate in case we get attacked.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Alex Salmond refuses to apologise for saying Tony Benn would be "birling in his grave" at his son Hilary's Syria speech.
Why should he apologise.
He's spot on the money. Tony Benn would be devastated to see his son vote to send British troops into harms way without any benefit from that action and the likely killing of plenty more civilians.
Hilary is a disgrace to his family name. He should be the first name on the Labour cull. They can't continue with a party filled with Red Tories. They know where that will take them, after all, Scotland will be fresh in their minds.
On the other hand, here's the impartial judgement of someone writing more than a year ago:
Who to believe, Alex Salmond or someone who knew him personally for many years?
It is perfectly consistent for someone to offer their offspring completely free reign in their life choices but still be disappointed at some of the choices they might make. There is a considerable difference between telling and hoping.
Either Benn's entire political life was one of hypocrisy and ideas he did not believe in or he would be disappointed that. while trying to persuade the public in general, he failed to even persuade his own son.
Long walk from '[Tony Benn] would be disappointed' to 'Hilary is a disgrace to his family name', but entirely expected.
I think he'd be quite pleased that his son was his own man.
Benn was alive when his son voted for the Iraq War and did not disown him
I am a bit surprised that people from the Corbyn wing have not thrown that at Benn rather more forcefully in the context of everything else that has been happening. How did he justify supporting a war of British and American aggression given the lack of UN support? Many would argue that the 2003 attack rather mirrored the Fascist dictators he spent time condemning in his speech. Perhaps this is yet to come.
Indeed, in retrospect that was the wrong call but it was Cabinet Collective Responsibility at the time which was why Cook and Short resigned
If it is proven to be terrorism, I wonder if this might push Trump over the line.
It would be the biggest terror attack on the US homeland since 9/11
It's a very odd target for a terrorist attack, though.
Perhaps they were planning on staging an attack somewhere else, but the red mist of anger descended and the office party became a new target?
Possibly, yes. Or maybe they were freelancers acting on their own initiative rather than directly controlled by some organisation. That is one of the most difficult scenarios for the security services.
Last night ISIS or whatever we are meant to call them said they were not responsible but welcomed the attack
I didn't post it as it was late and I didn't want to argue / isn't in my interests to cause trouble with the people saying it was white supremacists
These kind of attacks are the ones I fear now we are bombing Syria or at least the anger it stokes up within parts of the muslim population. Obviously ISIS we're going to try and bomb us anyway
Let me see if I have this straight. They attack us, but the West shouldn't retaliate in case we get attacked.
Well, its a view ......
"Well it's a view..." The top trump of smuggery, well played
Did I say we shouldn't attack in case we get attacked there? I don't think I did actually
If rain puts people off voting, as is accepted wisdom, people had best hope there isn't heavy rain during the PCC elections next year. Although suppose only the very dedicated did in any case, but if it impacts it further it might undermine the role. Which I would not mind in the least, but even so.
I remember the last PCC elections. When I voted around 6pm, I was the first voter they had seen for getting on for 90 minutes.
They are being held on the same day as the local elections next year in May rather than on their own in November like last time, so expect a higher turnout for the second PCC elections
What matters though is how those minorities vote not their favourability ratings.
Romney might have had a -11 favourables with Latinos, but in the end only 1 in 4 voted for him, he lost them by 44 points. And Trump regularly gets more votes than Rubio with Latinos in the opinion polls, despite the huge gap.
It simply illustrates that having high favourables in a voting group that will never vote for you anyway is a waste of time.
I said regularly, not in all of them, but you prove my point. Rubio is doing 49 points better than Trump in favourability with Latinos, but only 5 points better with the votes of Latinos than Trump. Being more favorable doesn't translate into votes.
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
Indeed, it is very generous, though Zuckerberg is worth $35 billion so will still have $350 million to play with even if he gives away 99% of his fortune to philanthropy and his daughter will still be a multi millionaire
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
He's giving it to his own charity foundation which he controls, he can now own 99% of Facebook from his own charity but not paying any taxes on it. It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm. Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
If I own shares and the shares don't pay a dividend, then what tax do I pay?
Ken livingstone has morphed from an engaging cheeky chappie to something quite sinister. He's almost unrecognizable from the popular ex mayor of London
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
Indeed, it is very generous, though Zuckerberg is worth $35 billion so will still have $350 million to play with even if he gives away 99% of his fortune to philanthropy and his daughter will still be a multi millionaire
He isn't giving the 99% away anytime soon. It is slowly over his lifetime and then his daughter also gets control of the LLC with the shares in.
We've lost a few good people through untimely death. If Iain Macleod, Robin Cook and perhaps David Penhaligon had survived maybe British politics would be in a better state.
Interestingly, both Iain Macleod and David Penhaligon were on the Eurosceptic wings of their parties.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Alex Salmond refuses to apologise for saying Tony Benn would be "birling in his grave" at his son Hilary's Syria speech.
Why should he apologise.
He's spot on the money. Tony Benn would be devastated to see his son vote to send British troops into harms way without any benefit from that action and the likely killing of plenty more civilians.
Hilary is a disgrace to his family name. He should be the first name on the Labour cull. They can't continue with a party filled with Red Tories. They know where that will take them, after all, Scotland will be fresh in their minds.
What exactly did Cameron say? I thought he said words along the lines of:
"Don't vote "No" with terrorist sympathisers"
But that does not mean he implied everyone voting "No" was a terrorist sympathiser - just that SOME of the people voting "No" were terrorist sympathisers.
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
He's giving it to his own charity foundation which he controls, he can now own 99% of Facebook from his own charity but not paying any taxes on it. It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm. Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
Compared to all those embassies and government buildings - they're always dumps....
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Alex Salmond refuses to apologise for saying Tony Benn would be "birling in his grave" at his son Hilary's Syria speech.
Why should he apologise.
He's spot on the money. Tony Benn would be devastated to see his son vote to send British troops into harms way without any benefit from that action and the likely killing of plenty more civilians.
Hilary is a disgrace to his family name. He should be the first name on the Labour cull. They can't continue with a party filled with Red Tories. They know where that will take them, after all, Scotland will be fresh in their minds.
On the other hand, here's the impartial judgement of someone writing more than a year ago:
Who to believe, Alex Salmond or someone who knew him personally for many years?
It is perfectly consistent for someone to offer
Either Benn's entire political life was one of hypocrisy and ideas he did not believe in or he would be disappointed that. while trying to persuade the public in general, he failed to even persuade his own son.
Long walk from '[Tony Benn] would be disappointed' to 'Hilary is a disgrace to his family name', but entirely expected.
I think he'd be quite pleased that his son was his own man.
Benn was alive when his son voted for the Iraq War and did not disown him
I am a bit surprised that people from the Corbyn wing have not thrown that at .
Indeed, in retrospect that was the wrong call but it was Cabinet Collective Responsibility at the time which was why Cook and Short resigned
Ah, the days of Labour collective responsibility!
We've lost a few good people through untimely death. If Iain Macleod, Robin Cook and perhaps David Penhaligon had survived maybe British politics would be in a better state.
Perhaps a more interesting one would have been if Bryan Gould had won over John Smith in 1992 for Labour leadership. No leadership contest for Blair to win, no Granita pact with Brown, no "New Labour", a eurosceptic Labour government and no UK involvement in Gulf War 2. A very interesting alternative history.
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Alex Salmond refuses to apologise for saying Tony Benn would be "birling in his grave" at his son Hilary's Syria speech.
Why should he apologise.
He's spot on the money. Tony Benn would be devastated to see his son vote to send British troops into harms way without any benefit from that action and the likely killing of plenty more civilians.
Hilary is a disgrace to his family name. He should be the first name on the Labour cull. They can't continue with a party filled with Red Tories. They know where that will take them, after all, Scotland will be fresh in their minds.
On the other hand, here's the impartial judgement of someone writing more than a year ago:
Who to believe, Alex Salmond or someone who knew him personally for many years?
It is perfectly consistent for someone to offer
Either Benn's entire political life was one of hypocrisy and ideas he did not believe in or he would be disappointed that. while trying to persuade the public in general, he failed to even persuade his own son.
Long walk from '[Tony Benn] would be disappointed' to 'Hilary is a disgrace to his family name', but entirely expected.
I think he'd be quite pleased that his son was his own man.
Benn was alive when his son voted for the Iraq War and did not disown him
I am a bit surprised that people from the Corbyn wing have not thrown that at .
Indeed, in retrospect that was the wrong call but it was Cabinet Collective Responsibility at the time which was why Cook and Short resigned
Ah, the days of Labour collective responsibility!
We've lost a few good people through untimely death. If Iain Macleod, Robin Cook and perhaps David Penhaligon had survived maybe British politics would be in a better state.
Perhaps a more interesting one would have been if Bryan Gould had won over John Smith in 1992 for Labour leadership. No leadership contest for Blair to win, no Granita pact with Brown, no "New Labour", a eurosceptic Labour government and no UK involvement in Gulf War 2. A very interesting alternative history.
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
He's giving it to his own charity foundation which he controls, he can now own 99% of Facebook from his own charity but not paying any taxes on it. It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm. Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
If I own shares and the shares don't pay a dividend, then what tax do I pay?
It is not exactly threatening them though is it - merely seeking to remind them of the potential consequences of their actions.
Can we also send them pictures of young Yazidi girls raped to death and gay men after they've been thrown off a tall building and a man having his head sliced off by a knife - merelyseeking to remind them of the actual consequences of their inactions?
What matters though is how those minorities vote not their favourability ratings.
Romney might have had a -11 favourables with Latinos, but in the end only 1 in 4 voted for him, he lost them by 44 points. And Trump regularly gets more votes than Rubio with Latinos in the opinion polls, despite the huge gap.
It simply illustrates that having high favourables in a voting group that will never vote for you anyway is a waste of time.
I said regularly, not in all of them, but you prove my point. Rubio is doing 49 points better than Trump in favourability with Latinos, but only 5 points better with the votes of Latinos than Trump. Being more favorable doesn't translate into votes.
Well you are correct on that but then George W Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004 and won Romney won the highest share of the white vote since Bush Snr but only 25% of Hispanics and lost which gives the GOP's problem in a nutshell
18:18 - Nigel Farage isn't too confident about the postal votes, Laura Hughes reports.
Speaking in UKIP's Royton headquarters, Nigel Farage told journalists: "If this was taking place today in one of dozens of other constituencies in the north of England we would have won it comfortably.
"The reason it's close and the reason I can't be confident about the postal votes is because in this constituency there is a particular block vote that is a very difficult demographic for UKIP."
Asked on where he he was referring to Asians voters as this "block vote", he said: "I'm going to say nothing because otherwise you'll all scream at me."
It is not exactly threatening them though is it - merely seeking to remind them of the potential consequences of their actions.
Can we also send them pictures of young Yazidi girls raped to death and gay men after they've been thrown off a tall building and a man having his head sliced off by a knife - merelyseeking to remind them of the actual consequences of their inactions?
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
He's giving it to his own charity foundation which he controls, he can now own 99% of Facebook from his own charity but not paying any taxes on it. It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm. Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
If I own shares and the shares don't pay a dividend, then what tax do I pay?
Capital gains tax & stamp duty when you buy them ?
18:18 - Nigel Farage isn't too confident about the postal votes, Laura Hughes reports.
Speaking in UKIP's Royton headquarters, Nigel Farage told journalists: "If this was taking place today in one of dozens of other constituencies in the north of England we would have won it comfortably.
"The reason it's close and the reason I can't be confident about the postal votes is because in this constituency there is a particular block vote that is a very difficult demographic for UKIP."
Asked on where he he was referring to Asians voters as this "block vote", he said: "I'm going to say nothing because otherwise you'll all scream at me."
Let me guess, tax avoidance purposes? It is! Shock, multi-billionaire founding his own charity foundation and moving his entire fortune to it to avoid taxes.
What bit of giving away most of his fortune do you not understand?
I'm increasingly thinking the insidious comments of the left about tax are just based on jealously....
He's giving it to his own charity foundation which he controls, he can now own 99% of Facebook from his own charity but not paying any taxes on it. It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm. Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
If I own shares and the shares don't pay a dividend, then what tax do I pay?
Capital gains tax & stamp duty when you buy them ?
Only apply if you buy or sell. I think the Facebook shares have not changed hands.
18:18 - Nigel Farage isn't too confident about the postal votes, Laura Hughes reports.
Speaking in UKIP's Royton headquarters, Nigel Farage told journalists: "If this was taking place today in one of dozens of other constituencies in the north of England we would have won it comfortably.
"The reason it's close and the reason I can't be confident about the postal votes is because in this constituency there is a particular block vote that is a very difficult demographic for UKIP."
Asked on where he he was referring to Asians voters as this "block vote", he said: "I'm going to say nothing because otherwise you'll all scream at me."
What is he wrong about? (other than assuming they'd have won comfortably in any other northern constituency)
Maybe just maybe if he was a tad less xenophobic that demographic wouldn't be so difficult for him.
Do you think Nigel xenophobic and if so why?
Yes I do and because of some of his remarks. I think when he's on top of his game he puts a veneer on it but I think he is. I think his party much more so. He is a more Middle Class and much more polished xenophobe than others so I wouldn't compare him to many other politicians. Puts the polite face on it.
So you provide no evidence why you just say he is. Of the ukip MEPs perhaps you can list the xenophobes too, seeing as the party is more xenophobic still.
Perhaps you mean Suzanne Evans
This isn't a court room so no "evidence". You asked if I think he is and yes I do. As for why by what he has said.
What matters though is how those minorities vote not their favourability ratings.
Romney might have had a -11 favourables with Latinos, but in the end only 1 in 4 voted for him, he lost them by 44 points. And Trump regularly gets more votes than Rubio with Latinos in the opinion polls, despite the huge gap.
It simply illustrates that having high favourables in a voting group that will never vote for you anyway is a waste of time.
I said regularly, not in all of them, but you prove my point. Rubio is doing 49 points better than Trump in favourability with Latinos, but only 5 points better with the votes of Latinos than Trump. Being more favorable doesn't translate into votes.
Well you are correct on that but then George W Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004 and won Romney won the highest share of the white vote since Bush Snr but only 25% of Hispanics and lost which gives the GOP's problem in a nutshell
True, but look at the states that matter, and the percentage of Latinos: Colorado 21.2 Iowa: 5.6 Ohio: 3.5 Nevada: 27.8 Pennsylvania: 6.6 Michigan: 4.8 Virginia: 8.9 N.Carolina: 9 Minnesota: 5.1 Florida: 24.1 (special case, those Latinos are Cuban not Mexican, Cuban's vote differently)
As you can see only Colorado and Nevada have high numbers of latino votes and they only have 6 and 9 Electoral Votes. The problem for the republicans is getting the white working class to vote for them again after the crash of 2008, not the minorities. Example look at Ohio, the drop in Latinos voting for the GOP only cost them max 0.7%, the GOP lost Ohio by much larger percentages than that.
Looks a bit of a jolly jape at the Lancs working class. Did they bring their whippets out to canvass too?
Kangol caps were huge in the US about 7 years ago. Still see them around quite often, but not so cool as they were back then: http://www.kangolstore.com/wool-504.html
I put some money on Labour @1.22 for the by-election about 3 hours ago. They are now in to 1.14 - has there been news as to why?
Farage has been getting his excuses in early.
Tory source on the ground, not even close..... Labour comfortable hold.
Corbynism sweeping the nation...
UKIP are probably more loathed than Labour in Oldham.
Still, it doesn't stop Farage getting his excuses in early, and blaming the 'foreigners' and their 'dodgy voting'.
Great stuff! He hasn't 'said' any of 'those things'
We can assume you don't think that the muslim vote has won it for Labour as the Times reports? It's the reason anyone half shrewd didn't think UKIP could win
True, but look at the states that matter, and the percentage of Latinos: Colorado 21.2 Iowa: 5.6 Ohio: 3.5 Nevada: 27.8 Pennsylvania: 6.6 Michigan: 4.8 Virginia: 8.9 N.Carolina: 9 Minnesota: 5.1 Florida: 24.1 (special case, those Latinos are Cuban not Mexican, Cuban's vote differently)
As you can see only Colorado and Nevada have high numbers of latino votes and they only have 6 and 9 Electoral Votes. The problem for the republicans is getting the white working class to vote for them again after the crash of 2008, not the minorities. Example look at Ohio, the drop in Latinos voting for the GOP only cost them max 0.7%, the GOP lost Ohio by much larger percentages than that.
One hundred percent agree. Romney failed not because he lost the Latino vote (he did and it is significant), nor because Obama maintained historically high levels of black voter turn out (he did) but because the GOP failed to get the white voter turnout needed. 1 million lost votes would have changed the outcome.
I'm not saying you are wrong in this case, but nutjobs of all descriptions collect weapons:
David Tovey, 37, was found guilty yesterday of two charges of racially aggravated criminal damage. He had hoarded pipe bombs, a Second World War Sten sub-machine gun, two shotguns, a silenced pistol and dum-dum bullets at his home in Oxfordshire.
I would hazard a guess that Mr Tovey might have gone a very different route if he had met a few different people, or read different websites. And that's the issue that concerns me: there are a small number of obsessive people who are looking for a cause, and will blindly give everything to that cause once they find it. In some cases it's religion; in others far-left or far-right politics. Or any other 'cause' you can think of.
I put some money on Labour @1.22 for the by-election about 3 hours ago. They are now in to 1.14 - has there been news as to why?
Farage has been getting his excuses in early.
Tory source on the ground, not even close..... Labour comfortable hold.
Corbynism sweeping the nation...
UKIP are probably more loathed than Labour in Oldham.
Still, it doesn't stop Farage getting his excuses in early, and blaming the 'foreigners' and their 'dodgy voting'.
Are you denying the existence of block voting? No doubt Lutfur Rahman was the victim of a racist smear campaign...
'Oh woe', says Kipper. 'It's all the fault of dem Asians and their iffy voting of which we have no proof'.
Of course it's nothing to do with the voter repelling Farage, and Team Kip parading around Oldham all day in flat caps, taking the piss with a parody act of 'Northern Types'.
I would disagree with the assesment that the next leader will be someone who voted FOR airstrikes this week. The bitterness to the 66 who voted for Airstrikes is significant and the reaction to the Benn speech in my local party is VERY different to the press and media. A lot of Labour Party members in my CLP speak with bitterness about the Benn speech because he impugned the motives and values of Labour party members who disagreed with him. All i can say is that in my locality ( South Wales) i cant see any of the 66 for action winning an election for anything inside the Labour party for a very long time.
Comments
I am sure he is going to do a lot for good causes, but it isn't a straight give away as the PR would suggest.
George V's "Bugger Bognor" statement was allegedly in reponse to a suggestion that he go there for the sea air. Or so I understand!
"Going badly" could mean many things other than what you describe. Assads forces or the Russians downing RAF planes, ground troops going in and getting bogged down in scrappy house to house fighting, prisoners being held hostage, or simply the war weariness that comes on the public where there are deaths of UK forces being read out before PMQs each week.
One of the problems of a limited mandate as this is that there is plenty of time for support to slip before we do send in the ground troops. If we are to make war, then we should have decided to go to war using unlimited force .
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2307
When I voted around 6pm, I was the first voter they had seen for getting on for 90 minutes.
It's a very usual accounting trick.
I've been to a party once, held in a really luxurious giant villa full with marble columns, gold leaf and stuff and huge giant swimming pools in the countryside, that was the HQ of a charity foundation of the owner of a major accountancy firm.
Of course he uses it as a front to avoid paying any taxes, after all if you own an accounting firm you can use all the tricks in the book.
"Don't vote "No" with terrorist sympathisers"
But that does not mean he implied everyone voting "No" was a terrorist sympathiser - just that SOME of the people voting "No" were terrorist sympathisers.
Well, its a view ......
Did I say we shouldn't attack in case we get attacked there? I don't think I did actually
Rubio is doing 49 points better than Trump in favourability with Latinos, but only 5 points better with the votes of Latinos than Trump.
Being more favorable doesn't translate into votes.
https://twitter.com/GawainTowler/status/672437705268178945
Is there a secret pro-EU death squad out there?
He gets fed a hell of a lot on here.
Oh, wait....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Gould
http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/venezuela/
http://www.cityam.com/224225/corbyn-puts-labour-s-moral-authority-risk-city-view
http://order-order.com/2014/05/10/labour-mp-spins-for-murderous-venezuelan-regime-amnesty-international-condemn-killings-torture-and-arrests/
There is more, much more.
Kamal Ahmed named as Robert Peston replacement
Formerly business editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Ahmed has also worked for The Guardian, The Observer and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35000003
God knows how Operation Neptune would have panned out with twitter and social media tweeting/posting all the details.
https://twitter.com/GawainTowler/status/672368485809446912
I mean, sauce for the goose and all that, no?
Interestingly one of those Corbyn is a risk leaflets is in the shop window.
http://dailyfeed.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Langmead-delboy-promo-43.jpg
Nige likes the old Del Boy style jacket...plus the drinking and smoking of course.
Colorado 21.2
Iowa: 5.6
Ohio: 3.5
Nevada: 27.8
Pennsylvania: 6.6
Michigan: 4.8
Virginia: 8.9
N.Carolina: 9
Minnesota: 5.1
Florida: 24.1 (special case, those Latinos are Cuban not Mexican, Cuban's vote differently)
As you can see only Colorado and Nevada have high numbers of latino votes and they only have 6 and 9 Electoral Votes.
The problem for the republicans is getting the white working class to vote for them again after the crash of 2008, not the minorities.
Example look at Ohio, the drop in Latinos voting for the GOP only cost them max 0.7%, the GOP lost Ohio by much larger percentages than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5WcHbA8kjY
Still, it doesn't stop Farage getting his excuses in early, and blaming the 'foreigners' and their 'dodgy voting'.
Correct.
The repubs want to scare all whites into voting for them, whatever class. It might work.
We can assume you don't think that the muslim vote has won it for Labour as the Times reports? It's the reason anyone half shrewd didn't think UKIP could win
Or not a factor?
New Thread New Thread
Or this guy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/richard-schmidt-detroit-hit-list_n_2765665.html
+ many more
I would hazard a guess that Mr Tovey might have gone a very different route if he had met a few different people, or read different websites. And that's the issue that concerns me: there are a small number of obsessive people who are looking for a cause, and will blindly give everything to that cause once they find it. In some cases it's religion; in others far-left or far-right politics. Or any other 'cause' you can think of.
Of course it's nothing to do with the voter repelling Farage, and Team Kip parading around Oldham all day in flat caps, taking the piss with a parody act of 'Northern Types'.