politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By two to one UKIP voters tell YouGov that Donald Trump’s

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By two to one UKIP voters tell YouGov that Donald Trump’s controversial Muslim immigration ban call was appropriate

UK YouGov polling on Trump's Muslim US immigration ban gets most backing from UKIP voters pic.twitter.com/CZelpdHBHp

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

UKIPers eh?

AlastairMeeks

I for one cannot understand why Labour did so well gaining the votes of the Muslim minority in Oldham West against UKIP.

SouthamObserver

Were they told what he said? Am I wrong in thinking he stated at some stage that even US citizens who are Muslims should not be allowed back into the US?

The_Apocalypse

That's totally unsurprising re UKIP voters. What's more interesting, is how most of the public don't agree with them.

Scott_P

@PolhomeEditor: Alistair Carmichael is going to pursue his accusers to cover his legal costs, I'm told. "It'll be ballpark £150,000," says a Lib Dem source

Theuniondivvie

'One out of three Con voters tell YouGov that Donald Trump’s controversial Muslim immigration ban call was appropriate'

Morris_Dancer

FPT: Mr. Mark, hope you and your lady wife have a nice time.

Mr. Smithson, this is in danger of becoming an inquisition series like a family of Russian dolls. Just when you think it's over, there's another.

Anyway, a great day for the Lib Dems. They've just retained 100% of their Scottish seats.

As for persons telling fibs not being allowed in power: it worked bloody well for Septimius Severus.

DiversityIsOurGodNow

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Divvie, one in three.

Carnyx

FPT

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, hope you and your lady wife have a nice time.

Mr. Smithson, this is in danger of becoming an inquisition series like a family of Russian dolls. Just when you think it's over, there's another.

Anyway, a great day for the Lib Dems. They've just retained 100% of their Scottish seats.

As for persons telling fibs not being allowed in power: it worked bloody well for Septimius Severus.

It's impossibly irresistible, so I have to ask, please: what's this Severan legislation?

Pong

If I a) had a few thousand £'s to spare and b) was still allowed to bet with Pinnacle, I'd be backing the field @ 2.28

https://www.pinnaclesports.com/en/odds/specials/politics/2016-presidential-election-usa

Theuniondivvie

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, one in three.

Already edited

CarlottaVance

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Divvie, one in three.

You know sums aren't the Nats strong suit - he's probably been sitting in traffic for hours...

DecrepitJohnL

AlastairMeeks said:

I for one cannot understand why Labour did so well gaining the votes of the Muslim minority in Oldham West against UKIP.

It is a conundrum.

Sean_F

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Carnyx, after the sudden death of Pertinax and the buying (literally) of the imperial purple by Didius Julianus, three leading generals all declared themselves emperor.

Septimius Severus was one, Albinus and Niger were the other two. Severus allied with one of them, promising to share the imperial power, and destroyed the third. Once this was done, he slew his erstwhile ally and enjoyed undivided power.

Admittedly, this is somewhat more serious than the accusation against Alistair Carmichael.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Divvie, aye, easy enough mistake to make. [This morning I got the year Button won the title wrong, which was quite shocking].

AndyJS

The_Apocalypse said:

That's totally unsurprising re UKIP voters. What's more interesting, is how most of the public don't agree with them.

Why is it interesting? It's what you'd expect to find.

felix

The UKIP voter position is not surprising. Of note is that a small but not insignificant proportion of all voters thought the remarks appropriate. The right response - to be effective - would be to engage with the minority. The rather silly howls of left-liberal outrage on Twitter, etc will just confirm many of these people in their views. I strongly disagree with Trump's sentiments but can totally see why those views appeal - they are the result of decades in which many ordinary people have been viewed as bigots by the metropolitan elites in this country and no doubt also in the USA.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

TCPoliticalBetting

The genius that is Lucy Powell is on BBC2 DP show.....

Carnyx

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, after the sudden death of Pertinax and the buying (literally) of the imperial purple by Didius Julianus, three leading generals all declared themselves emperor.

Septimius Severus was one, Albinus and Niger were the other two. Severus allied with one of them, promising to share the imperial power, and destroyed the third. Once this was done, he slew his erstwhile ally and enjoyed undivided power.

Admittedly, this is somewhat more serious than the accusation against Alistair Carmichael.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Divvie, aye, easy enough mistake to make. [This morning I got the year Button won the title wrong, which was quite shocking].

Ah, thank you, Mr D. One learns something new ...

Richard_Nabavi

It strikes me that this isn't a very well-worded question. Does 'appropriate' mean that it's a good policy, or does it mean that it is a policy which the US could legitimately introduce if it wanted to?

Casino_Royale

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

I'd also add that a points system that assesses cultural entropy with the U.K. (in terms of beliefs and values) would also be valid, even though quite obviously gameable.

Theuniondivvie

Morris_Dancer said:

Edited extra bit: Mr. Divvie, aye, easy enough mistake to make. [This morning I got the year Button won the title wrong, which was quite shocking].

I am genuinely shocked!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Carnyx, Septimius Severus is a quite interesting figure. He was ruthless and competent. Definitely not in the 'nice' category, but probably a bright spot in the dark times from Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian.

He also campaigned in Scotland.

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

There'd be no reason to bar people from Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, which are pretty stable; or for that matter, Muslims from India or China. But much of the Middle East and North Africa would be a different matter.

SouthamObserver

felix said:

The UKIP voter position is not surprising. Of note is that a small but not insignificant proportion of all voters thought the remarks appropriate. The right response - to be effective - would be to engage with the minority. The rather silly howls of left-liberal outrage on Twitter, etc will just confirm many of these people in their views. I strongly disagree with Trump's sentiments but can totally see why those views appeal - they are the result of decades in which many ordinary people have been viewed as bigots by the metropolitan elites in this country and no doubt also in the USA.

It's a bit of a stretch to describe Trump's Republican rivals as "left-liberal". Didn't Nigel Farage also condemn what he said?

CarlottaVance

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Alistair Carmichael is going to pursue his accusers to cover his legal costs, I'm told. "It'll be ballpark £150,000," says a Lib Dem source

I hope those Nats who cheered them on will be as generous after defeat as they were before....

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

There'd be no reason to bar people from Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, which are pretty stable; or for that matter, Muslims from India or China. But much of the Middle East and North Africa would be a different matter.

I think that's correct. There would be explicit bans on failed states, plus a points system for the rest.

flightpath01

This sums up what ukip now are. Nothing to do with the EU, but a party of bigots that will do anything to sustain itself by jumping on any passing band wagon

flightpath01

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Alistair Carmichael is going to pursue his accusers to cover his legal costs, I'm told. "It'll be ballpark £150,000," says a Lib Dem source

I hope those Nats who cheered them on will be as generous after defeat as they were before....

If Carmichael goes after the money he will come a cropper.

DiversityIsOurGodNow

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

There is undoubtedly a huge overlap between those two areas. And it would arguably be unjust for the individual concerned, but considering the long-term effects on Britain that argument is weakened somewhat. And let's not forget that it's up to the British government to put Britain and Britain's interests first, not second or third or whatever else.

flightpath01

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I for one cannot understand why Labour did so well gaining the votes of the Muslim minority in Oldham West against UKIP.

It is a conundrum.

Wrapped on an enigma

rottenborough

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

There'd be no reason to bar people from Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, which are pretty stable; or for that matter, Muslims from India or China. But much of the Middle East and North Africa would be a different matter.

I think that's correct. There would be explicit bans on failed states, plus a points system for the rest.

Can anybody tell me how on earth this would be implemented practically even if it wasn't nonsense from a lunatic? Do passports record religion? I don't remember seeing that, but I can't find mine to double check.

SouthamObserver

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

There'd be no reason to bar people from Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, which are pretty stable; or for that matter, Muslims from India or China. But much of the Middle East and North Africa would be a different matter.

Violent Jihadists can and do come from multiple countries. The Bali bombers weren't from North Africa or the Middle East, the Moslem terrorists in China are almost exclusively Chinese citizens and many (most?) of those who commit terrorist atrocities in the UK - or plan for them - are born here.

rottenborough

TCPoliticalBetting said:

The genius that is Lucy Powell is on BBC2 DP show.....

Might be her last time, so she should make the most of it and give us a popcorn moment or two.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Divvie, me too, not least because that remains my biggest winning tip (70/1).

Mind you, I forgot the name of the second most important character in my first book (Bane of Souls) only a couple of months after releasing it. I'm beginning to wonder if my vast knowledge in classical history is starting to evict unrelated memories from my brain.

Bob__Sykes

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

CarlottaVance

flightpath01 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Alistair Carmichael is going to pursue his accusers to cover his legal costs, I'm told. "It'll be ballpark £150,000," says a Lib Dem source

I hope those Nats who cheered them on will be as generous after defeat as they were before....

If Carmichael goes after the money he will come a cropper.

He's said he will - I suspect he wont be standing in 2020......

AndyJS

YouGov conducted a poll last year which found that 84% wanted the UK population to stay the same or decrease. 11% wanted it to increase.

http://www.populationmatters.org/take-action/speak-out/making-case/opinion-polls/

Sean_F

flightpath01 said:

This sums up what ukip now are. Nothing to do with the EU, but a party of bigots that will do anything to sustain itself by jumping on any passing band wagon

UKIP don't support Donald Trump's views.

Scott_P

rottenborough said:

Might be her last time, so she should make the most of it and give us a popcorn moment or two.

Seems to be uber-loyal so far. Hoping to avoid the purge?

Casino_Royale

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

There'd be no reason to bar people from Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, which are pretty stable; or for that matter, Muslims from India or China. But much of the Middle East and North Africa would be a different matter.

I think that's correct. There would be explicit bans on failed states, plus a points system for the rest.

Can anybody tell me how on earth this would be implemented practically even if it wasn't nonsense from a lunatic? Do passports record religion? I don't remember seeing that, but I can't find mine to double check.

I think a structured interview with background checks could be very revealing.

I'm not proposing filtering immigrants on religion. Just on beliefs and values.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

DiversityIsOurGodNow said:

Well, Trump does have a point. Only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatical head-choppers, but why take the risk when the only rewards are more illegal taxi drivers, more fried chicken shops and the ghettoisation of our towns and cities?

Barring someone from immigrating solely on the basis of their religion is unjust.

Barring someone from immigrating from failed States, however, is quite reasonable in my opinion.

IMHO plenty will say the former when they really mean the latter.

There'd be no reason to bar people from Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia or Malaysia, which are pretty stable; or for that matter, Muslims from India or China. But much of the Middle East and North Africa would be a different matter.

Violent Jihadists can and do come from multiple countries. The Bali bombers weren't from North Africa or the Middle East, the Moslem terrorists in China are almost exclusively Chinese citizens and many (most?) of those who commit terrorist atrocities in the UK - or plan for them - are born here.

I'm sure that's right, but I think if you permit mass immigration from countries where law and order has broken down, or where there's civil war, you're increasing the size of the sea that the terrorist fish can swim among.

Plato_Says

Politics Home
Labour "broadly speaking" supports David Cameron's four areas of EU reform demands, says Lucy Powell #bbcdp

dr_spyn

Northern Powerhouse, more nice round numbers for the benefits of the Transport policy. looks like spin. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35048842

SouthamObserver

I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between an average voter - UKIP or not - instinctively feeling that all Moslems should be barred from entering a country and a person seeking office thinking it. The former are leading their lives, dipping in and out of what is happening here and elsewhere, and when they do dip what they read and watch are stories about violence perpetrated by Moslem terrorists. That understandably worries millions of people who do not have the time or the temperament to look deeply into context, to think through probabilities or to consider legalities. If you are running for President, however, you do have a responsibility to do all that. UKIP and other voters thinking what they do are not wicked or racist, they are extremely concerned. People like Trump stoking the fires, though, are another kettle completely. They are wicked.

Carnyx

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, Septimius Severus is a quite interesting figure. He was ruthless and competent. Definitely not in the 'nice' category, but probably a bright spot in the dark times from Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian.

He also campaigned in Scotland.

So he did. But he died and they all went home. Unlike Judaea.

Carnyx

Bob__Sykes said:

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

Lallands Peat Worrier (whose blog will be very interesting in the next few days, as it always has been on the case) points out the irony of a man getting off on the grounds that his act was politically motivated, complaining that his opponents' action was politically motivated.

https://twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/674548169062133760

felix

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

The UKIP voter position is not surprising. Of note is that a small but not insignificant proportion of all voters thought the remarks appropriate. The right response - to be effective - would be to engage with the minority. The rather silly howls of left-liberal outrage on Twitter, etc will just confirm many of these people in their views. I strongly disagree with Trump's sentiments but can totally see why those views appeal - they are the result of decades in which many ordinary people have been viewed as bigots by the metropolitan elites in this country and no doubt also in the USA.

It's a bit of a stretch to describe Trump's Republican rivals as "left-liberal". Didn't Nigel Farage also condemn what he said?

Oh yes of course but I think the blanket condemnation and outrage in itself acts in the same way - for those with concerns it has the effect of seeming to shut their views out completely as if they don't matter. I think that helps to create the alienation which is clearly evident in the white underclass.

AndyJS

25% supporting Trump is a shockingly high figure actually, about the same percentage of English voters who currently support Labour, according to opinion polls.

TGOHF

Does that mean Trump won't be our next PM ?

Carnyx

Bob__Sykes said:

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

Also - the fact it wasn't thrown out at the start showed that there was a real case to answer [edit: there was a two-stage process]. And AFAIK it's not Scots law but UK electoral law. And it was a special electoral court, with remarkably brief hearings - they actually decided to gee things up and cancelled the final day.

MarkHopkins

Carnyx said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

Lallands Peat Worrier (whose blog will be very interesting in the next few days, as it always has been on the case) points out the irony of a man getting off on the grounds that his act was politically motivated, complaining that his opponents' action was politically motivated.

twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/674548169062133760

There are many actions in politics that are "politically motivated". (Duh).

However, I think most people would agree that bringing a criminal case that is political motivated is rather excessive.

Carnyx

MarkHopkins said:

Carnyx said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

Lallands Peat Worrier (whose blog will be very interesting in the next few days, as it always has been on the case) points out the irony of a man getting off on the grounds that his act was politically motivated, complaining that his opponents' action was politically motivated.

twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/674548169062133760

There are many actions in politics that are "politically motivated". (Duh).

However, I think most people would agree that bringing a criminal case that is political motivated is rather excessive.

Not a criminal case, surely.

dr_spyn

@Alanbrooke might want to switch TV off for next 30 mins - questions to George Osborne....

DiversityIsOurGodNow

The merits/drawbacks of appealing to populist sentiment aside, the fact remains that the global threat from Islam needs to be addressed. It's very easy to say "let's give the world a hug", the Guardian bedwetters do it all the time, but reality is catching up fast. We can't wipe out Islam, we can't contain it's spread globally, but we can limit the damage by stopping importing more. If we import no Muslims, we will import no Muslim extremists. So much damage has been done by the handwringers who think immigrants arrive in the UK vacuum-sealed without thoughts and opinions and cultural baggage, who are just aching to pick up a copy of the Guardian and "celebrate the diversity".

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between an average voter - UKIP or not - instinctively feeling that all Moslems should be barred from entering a country and a person seeking office thinking it. The former are leading their lives, dipping in and out of what is happening here and elsewhere, and when they do dip what they read and watch are stories about violence perpetrated by Moslem terrorists. That understandably worries millions of people who do not have the time or the temperament to look deeply into context, to think through probabilities or to consider legalities. If you are running for President, however, you do have a responsibility to do all that. UKIP and other voters thinking what they do are not wicked or racist, they are extremely concerned. People like Trump stoking the fires, though, are another kettle completely. They are wicked.

That's a very fair comment.

Pulpstar

I think this has increased, not decreased the probability of a Nat gain here in 2020, though I'd still have the yellow peril as odds on.

Scott_P

@BrianWilson1967: Looking forward to Lesley Riddoch leading fund-raising efforts to hound Sturgeon through the courts over Forth Road Bridge denials

MarkHopkins

Carnyx said:

MarkHopkins said:

Carnyx said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

Lallands Peat Worrier (whose blog will be very interesting in the next few days, as it always has been on the case) points out the irony of a man getting off on the grounds that his act was politically motivated, complaining that his opponents' action was politically motivated.

twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/674548169062133760

There are many actions in politics that are "politically motivated". (Duh).

However, I think most people would agree that bringing a criminal case that is political motivated is rather excessive.

Not a criminal case, surely.

Ok, similar to. Substantial defence process and costs; to the same evidentiary standards; with a significant potential punishment of being bared from public office.

Danny565

Torn on the Carmichael case. On the one hand, I think the judgement was probably right - I don't think you can cast the net of "election-voiding lies" that wide, or else half the House would be in trouble.

On the other hand, I was really looking forward to that by-election...

DavidL

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: Alistair Carmichael is going to pursue his accusers to cover his legal costs, I'm told. "It'll be ballpark £150,000," says a Lib Dem source

Hmm...I would not be so confident that expenses will completely follow success here. The petitioners will also probably have been awarded the costs of the debate which they won. It would not surprise me if the Court's disapproval was reflected in some moderation of the expenses.

AndyJS

Do you think it's wicked that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have refused to take any Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq?

SouthamObserver said:

I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between an average voter - UKIP or not - instinctively feeling that all Moslems should be barred from entering a country and a person seeking office thinking it. The former are leading their lives, dipping in and out of what is happening here and elsewhere, and when they do dip what they read and watch are stories about violence perpetrated by Moslem terrorists. That understandably worries millions of people who do not have the time or the temperament to look deeply into context, to think through probabilities or to consider legalities. If you are running for President, however, you do have a responsibility to do all that. UKIP and other voters thinking what they do are not wicked or racist, they are extremely concerned. People like Trump stoking the fires, though, are another kettle completely. They are wicked.

Carnyx

MarkHopkins said:

Carnyx said:

MarkHopkins said:

Carnyx said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Catching up on the Carmichael result, this instinctively feels like the right decision, and what a monumental waste of court time and costs this highly politically-motivated challenge has proved to be. I'm not a Scots lawyer, but I was surprised the case ever got as far as it did.

Bet The National feel like a bunch of chumps with their front page today. Wonder what tomorrow's will bring...? (And will Carmichael have today's framed and hung in his office?!)

Lallands Peat Worrier (whose blog will be very interesting in the next few days, as it always has been on the case) points out the irony of a man getting off on the grounds that his act was politically motivated, complaining that his opponents' action was politically motivated.

twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/674548169062133760

There are many actions in politics that are "politically motivated". (Duh).

However, I think most people would agree that bringing a criminal case that is political motivated is rather excessive.

Not a criminal case, surely.

Ok, similar to. Substantial defence process and costs; to the same evidentiary standards; with a significant potential punishment of being bared from public office.

Full judgement should be up any moment now -
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=9452fba6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

NIN22

TheScreamingEagles said:

UKIPers eh?

And about 3.4 million Tories?

rottenborough

Danny565 said:

Torn on the Carmichael case. On the one hand, I think the judgement was probably right - I don't think you can cast the net of "election-voiding lies" that wide, or else half the House would be in trouble.

On the other hand, I was really looking forward to that by-election...

Oh well, there is the 'mystery' by-election coming up in first part of 2016, if Mike's source is to be believed. In a Labour seat.

CarlottaVance

Both Eagle & Osborne doing pretty well - one of them may not be smart showing up their boss.....

Danny565

No interest in the Osborne v Eagle clash?

The_Apocalypse

Danny565 said:

No interest in the Osborne v Eagle clash?

My mum is absolutely loving it. She thinks Eagle 'tore into' Osborne, but then again she hates this government even more than I do!

logical_song

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between an average voter - UKIP or not - instinctively feeling that all Moslems should be barred from entering a country and a person seeking office thinking it. The former are leading their lives, dipping in and out of what is happening here and elsewhere, and when they do dip what they read and watch are stories about violence perpetrated by Moslem terrorists. That understandably worries millions of people who do not have the time or the temperament to look deeply into context, to think through probabilities or to consider legalities. If you are running for President, however, you do have a responsibility to do all that. UKIP and other voters thinking what they do are not wicked or racist, they are extremely concerned. People like Trump stoking the fires, though, are another kettle completely. They are wicked.

That's a very fair comment.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

rottenborough

Perhaps the most worrying part of this YouGov survey is the 16% of Liberal voters who think Trump policy is appropriate. I mean come on guys - the Liberal party!

DecrepitJohnL

TGOHF said:

Does that mean Trump won't be our next PM ?

Trump was hoping to stand in the Orkney and Shetland byelection.

DiversityIsOurGodNow

AndyJS said:

Do you think it's wicked that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have refused to take any Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq?

SouthamObserver said:

I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between an average voter - UKIP or not - instinctively feeling that all Moslems should be barred from entering a country and a person seeking office thinking it. The former are leading their lives, dipping in and out of what is happening here and elsewhere, and when they do dip what they read and watch are stories about violence perpetrated by Moslem terrorists. That understandably worries millions of people who do not have the time or the temperament to look deeply into context, to think through probabilities or to consider legalities. If you are running for President, however, you do have a responsibility to do all that. UKIP and other voters thinking what they do are not wicked or racist, they are extremely concerned. People like Trump stoking the fires, though, are another kettle completely. They are wicked.

Japan too, in fact Japan has essentially been following Trump's policy for ages.

Japan. Now there's a nation that puts their long-term self interest over the "feelings" of some third-world religious primitive. What a place!

Scott_P

Danny565 said:

No interest in the Osborne v Eagle clash?

Pundits giving it to Eagles.

Where does that leave Corbyn? Oh, still there, going nowhere...

CD13

What a hoot.

Wanting to bar Trump because the shouty teenagers on twitter don't like his opinions. I don't agree with him but I think Jezza is a far more serious risk to the UK.

Has Trump demanded that apostates are beheaded? Or did I miss that? TBF, neither has Jezza ... yet.

For stupid people, free speech means that only people who agree with them can have it. For them, Gyppophobia is good (Note the double 'p', Mr Cole), but Islamophobia is a hanging offence. A sort of Top Trumps game.

I remember listening to the radio last year with an old work colleague - a devout Muslim. The presenter was explaining the furore over a Ukip councillor supporting an end to immigration and a ban on homosexuality or something. My ex-colleague turned to me and said "Well, I support 50% of that."

As do most of his devout Muslim friends.

So how do homophobia and Isamophobia rank?

Scott_P

@patrickwintour: A retro revolution. Tony Blair has been quoted with approval at Prime Minister's Questions by the Labour front bench.

rottenborough

DecrepitJohnL said:

TGOHF said:

Does that mean Trump won't be our next PM ?

Trump was hoping to stand in the Orkney and Shetland byelection.

No, you have misunderstood him. He wants to turn it into a golf course!

Scott_P

@AndrewSparrow: My snap PMQs verdict - https://t.co/rIGz7nqnWF - Eagle v good (not least for feat of getting Labour MPs to back something said by TBlair)

DiversityIsOurGodNow

CD13 said:

What a hoot.

Wanting to bar Trump because the shouty teenagers on twitter don't like his opinions. I don't agree with him but I think Jezza is a far more serious risk to the UK.

Has Trump demanded that apostates are beheaded? Or did I miss that? TBF, neither has Jezza ... yet.

For stupid people, free speech means that only people who agree with them can have it. For them, Gyppophobia is good (Note the double 'p', Mr Cole), but Islamophobia is a hanging offence. A sort of Top Trumps game.

I remember listening to the radio last year with an old work colleague - a devout Muslim. The presenter was explaining the furore over a Ukip councillor supporting an end to immigration and a ban on homosexuality or something. My ex-colleague turned to me and said "Well, I support 50% of that."

As do most of his devout Muslim friends.

So how do homophobia and Isamophobia rank?

SHHHH!!!!!!!! Only whitey can be homophobic and racist. Didn't you get the memo? When Muslims hate gays it's OK because "it's their culture", but when whitey does it expect a visit from plod because it's a "hate crime".

Carnyx

Danny565 said:

Torn on the Carmichael case. On the one hand, I think the judgement was probably right - I don't think you can cast the net of "election-voiding lies" that wide, or else half the House would be in trouble.

On the other hand, I was really looking forward to that by-election...

I'm not that sure the politicians have got off that easily, till we see the full judgement. As some have been saying on Twitter, we may yet see inerviewers saying "Excuding the Carmichael Defence, are you a liar?"

The law has been there since IIRC 1983 (and in other forms before, famously invoked by Hugh MacDiarmid in the 1930s) but hardly ever used I assume because of the obvious constraints (voters in a given constituency, time limited, risk being personally liable for costs etc.). But with the advent of crowdfunding and the Net this is changing as we see. The wider implications are very interesting, not least because we all now know more about how to get one's ducks in a line.

TheScreamingEagles

That was a proper and enjoyable PMQs.

Proper knockabout, checks odds on the 2020 election being Osborne v Angela Eagle

SouthamObserver

AndyJS said:

Do you think it's wicked that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have refused to take any Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq?

SouthamObserver said:

I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between an average voter - UKIP or not - instinctively feeling that all Moslems should be barred from entering a country and a person seeking office thinking it. The former are leading their lives, dipping in and out of what is happening here and elsewhere, and when they do dip what they read and watch are stories about violence perpetrated by Moslem terrorists. That understandably worries millions of people who do not have the time or the temperament to look deeply into context, to think through probabilities or to consider legalities. If you are running for President, however, you do have a responsibility to do all that. UKIP and other voters thinking what they do are not wicked or racist, they are extremely concerned. People like Trump stoking the fires, though, are another kettle completely. They are wicked.

I'd say just about everything to do with Saudi Arabia is wicked.

Danny565

Osborne really does look and sound like the classic Bond villain.

Alanbrooke

dr_spyn said:

@Alanbrooke might want to switch TV off for next 30 mins - questions to George Osborne....

Ive been too busy packing a rush order to look :-)

John_M

CD13 said:

What a hoot.

Wanting to bar Trump because the shouty teenagers on twitter don't like his opinions. I don't agree with him but I think Jezza is a far more serious risk to the UK.

Has Trump demanded that apostates are beheaded? Or did I miss that? TBF, neither has Jezza ... yet.

For stupid people, free speech means that only people who agree with them can have it. For them, Gyppophobia is good (Note the double 'p', Mr Cole), but Islamophobia is a hanging offence. A sort of Top Trumps game.

I remember listening to the radio last year with an old work colleague - a devout Muslim. The presenter was explaining the furore over a Ukip councillor supporting an end to immigration and a ban on homosexuality or something. My ex-colleague turned to me and said "Well, I support 50% of that."

As do most of his devout Muslim friends.

So how do homophobia and Isamophobia rank?

It says much for the agility of the human mind that people can be feminist, pro-LGBT rights and so forth AND address gender segregated meetings of people who think it's not the end of the world to throw gay people off buildings.

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

That was a proper and enjoyable PMQs.

Proper knockabout, checks odds on the 2020 election being Osborne v Angela Eagle

Another one on the list of leader-in-waiting. Who was that bloke last week? Benn something or other.

Unfortunately the membership are still in raptures.

TheScreamingEagles

Danny565 said:

No interest in the Osborne v Eagle clash?

Had it on live pause, just caught up, Eagle did really well. Jezza note well how you can use PMQs to cause difficulties to the government.

She even got the Labour party to cheer Tony Blair.

SimonStClare

Scott_P said:

@AndrewSparrow: My snap PMQs verdict - https://t.co/rIGz7nqnWF - Eagle v good (not least for feat of getting Labour MPs to back something said by TBlair)

Well that’s a turn up for the books - was it said through gritted teeth..!

Scott_P

@faisalislam: Ghost of Jim Bowen's Bullseye for many Labour MPs - "look what you could have won" against Osborne, @angelaeagle instead of Mao's red book

AndyJS

An interesting poll question would be: who do you think is more of a risk, Corbyn or Trump? We know what the answer in Islington would be, of course.

TheScreamingEagles

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

That was a proper and enjoyable PMQs.

Proper knockabout, checks odds on the 2020 election being Osborne v Angela Eagle

Another one on the list of leader-in-waiting. Who was that bloke last week? Benn something or other.

Unfortunately the membership are still in raptures.

One of the reason I'm laying Benn is I can't see him doing the knockabout stuff that all Leaders need.

Ms Eagle had it in spades. I think Tom Watson does too.

Scott_P

@MichaelLCrick: I must dig out the book review I did about 20 years ago in which I forecast Angela Eagle would be Labour leader in about 2020.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

That was a proper and enjoyable PMQs.

Proper knockabout, checks odds on the 2020 election being Osborne v Angela Eagle

Request her as a runner on Betfair, might stick up some odds :P.

John_M

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Ghost of Jim Bowen's Bullseye for many Labour MPs - "look what you could have won" against Osborne, @angelaeagle instead of Mao's red book

Jezza is probably going "Wow, she did really well - for a chick. Bless".

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

That was a proper and enjoyable PMQs.

Proper knockabout, checks odds on the 2020 election being Osborne v Angela Eagle

Request her as a runner on Betfair, might stick up some odds :P.

I will. Paddy Power are offering 4/5 (yes 4/5) on someone else other than Corbyn leading Labour at the GE.

not_on_fire

I am genuinely curious how a US immigration officer would be supposed to identify a Muslim. if Trump's plan was implemented. If asked you could just say you decided to become an atheist yesterday.

Pro_Rata

Sort of on-topic: The history of political correctness in post-war Britain is one I can't qget my head around.

chestnut

It appears that anyone who can simultaneously stand up and string a sentence together is now presumed to be a better leader than Corbyn.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

That was a proper and enjoyable PMQs.

Proper knockabout, checks odds on the 2020 election being Osborne v Angela Eagle

Request her as a runner on Betfair, might stick up some odds :P.

I will. Paddy Power are offering 4/5 (yes 4/5) on someone else other than Corbyn leading Labour at the GE.

My internet is being too slow to do anything. i suspect there is a crazy amount of arbitrage around Corbyn betting right now though.