politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Professor Michael Thrasher introduces The Elections Centre

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Professor Michael Thrasher introduces The Elections Centre

When Rallings and Thrasher established the Elections Centre in the early 1980s the principal aim was to collect and publish local election results in the same way that F.W.S. Craig was covering the parliamentary equivalent.

Read the full story here

Sunil_Prasannan

Let's make PB great again!

TheScreamingEagles

Excellent

Polruan

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.

That's my feeling too, but the counter-argument is that to do so would pre-empt a decision which really should be taken by the team set up to handle Brexit - in reality, by Cameron's successor.

I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiations are done. I am not sure who he would trust to do it otherwise.

Yeah, I agree. The possible successors in that scenario are those who (in Cameron's eyes) would make a bad situation for the Cameron legacy considerably worse. Hence the idea that he'd cling on and try and engineer a GE so he could have his increase in the majority as a consolation prize (and ideally get clear before the next Indyref).

malcolmg

fourth

AlastairMeeks

This looks like a great resource. I've bookmarked it.

TheWhiteRabbit

A worthy attempt - I will check it out later.

Plato_Says

Golly, some extraordinary venomous quotes from doctors here

Those opening words were spoken in 1947 by Aneurin Bevan, the Welsh socialist now remembered by many as the father of the National Health Service. At the time, he was damned by the BMA; barely two years after the end of the war, doctors routinely compared Bevan to Hitler in a row about how much they should be paid by the NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12187968/Doctors-strike-the-NHS-exists-to-serve-patients-not-keep-doctors-happy.html

logical_song

This is really useful, Thanks

Norm

Plato_Says said:

Golly, some extraordinary venomous quotes from doctors here

Those opening words were spoken in 1947 by Aneurin Bevan, the Welsh socialist now remembered by many as the father of the National Health Service. At the time, he was damned by the BMA; barely two years after the end of the war, doctors routinely compared Bevan to Hitler in a row about how much they should be paid by the NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12187968/Doctors-strike-the-NHS-exists-to-serve-patients-not-keep-doctors-happy.html

The gov't should hold firm. They need to do what is right not what might seem popular. Support is trickling away from the doctors albeit at a snails pace.

OllyT

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

SimonStClare

Welcome Mr Thrasher.

Sounds V useful, good luck with your first venture into making the data available interactively.

TheScreamingEagles

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thanks for this piece, Professor Thrasher.

I'm sure the more statistically astute members of the site will have some interesting thoughts on the data.

NorfolkTilIDie

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

I agree but he could end up putting Clinton in bind if Obama puts forward a moderate that she then has to nominate when she wants a liberal Scalia.

TheScreamingEagles

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

I agree but he could end up putting Clinton in bind if Obama puts forward a moderate that she then has to nominate when she wants a liberal Scalia.

The next President may get to nominate a further three nominees during their term.

I can see Ginsburg and Breyer standing down if we have a Clinton Presidency.

NickPalmer

Polruan said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.

That's my feeling too, but the counter-argument is that to do so would pre-empt a decision which really should be taken by the team set up to handle Brexit - in reality, by Cameron's successor.

I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiations are done. I am not sure who he would trust to do it otherwise.

Yeah, I agree. The possible successors in that scenario are those who (in Cameron's eyes) would make a bad situation for the Cameron legacy considerably worse. Hence the idea that he'd cling on and try and engineer a GE so he could have his increase in the majority as a consolation prize (and ideally get clear before the next Indyref).

I don't know him personally, but I get the impression that he's not far off an "oh, sod it" point, and if the vote was Leave I can't see him wanting to have a year or two haggling over the consequences. I think he'd shrug, say "OK, someone else sort it out", and quit within 3 months. Fighting a new General Election would be far from his thoughts, though I agree with those on the previous thread who said Labour would agree to it if proposed - for the Opposition to say oo-er, no, thanks would be ridiculous.

NickPalmer

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

Wasn't there a report that a moderate Republican governor was being vetted as a possibility?

NorfolkTilIDie

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

1) Opponent is Trump

2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

That wil also boost turnout in her favour.

Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.

Thats not right. For example if Scalia is replaced by a liberal, then Kennedy would no longer be the median justice but the fourth most conservative. It would be Kagan probably. Or perhaps if Obama picks a new moderate it would be her. Thats why Obama has to balance short term political moderate hurting GOP this year versus long term centre of Supreme Court.

TheScreamingEagles

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

Wasn't there a report that a moderate Republican governor was being vetted as a possibility?

I just can't see it happening. As POTUS you don't give one of your Supreme Court nominees to your opponents.

TheWhiteRabbit

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

1) Opponent is Trump

2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

That wil also boost turnout in her favour.

Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.

Thats not right. For example if Scalia is replaced by a liberal, then Kennedy would no longer be the median justice but the fourth most conservative. It would be Kagan probably. Or perhaps if Obama picks a new moderate it would be her. Thats why Obama has to balance short term political moderate hurting GOP this year versus long term centre of Supreme Court.

He should pick a centrist (maybe even slightly right-of-centre), set a trap for the GOP and ensure his legacy isn't ruined at the same time.

john_zims

@Plato_Says


'The last Labour government took capitulation to extremes. The National Audit Office says doctors’ pay rose 48 per cent between 2000 and 2009. NHS productivity fell 2 per cent.'


Massive pay increases with falling productivity and now they want to put their snouts deeper in the trough.

NorfolkTilIDie

TheWhiteRabbit said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

1) Opponent is Trump

2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

That wil also boost turnout in her favour.

Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.

Thats not right. For example if Scalia is replaced by a liberal, then Kennedy would no longer be the median justice but the fourth most conservative. It would be Kagan probably. Or perhaps if Obama picks a new moderate it would be her. Thats why Obama has to balance short term political moderate hurting GOP this year versus long term centre of Supreme Court.

He should pick a centrist (maybe even slightly right-of-centre), set a trap for the GOP and ensure his legacy isn't ruined at the same time.

The thing is "centrist" means both politically moderate and very unwilling to overturn prior decisions. When Democrats desperately want to overturn rulings on political donations. Ideally they want someone just liberal enough to be relied on for that.

TheScreamingEagles

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

1) Opponent is Trump

2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

That wil also boost turnout in her favour.

Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.

Thats not right. For example if Scalia is replaced by a liberal, then Kennedy would no longer be the median justice but the fourth most conservative. It would be Kagan probably. Or perhaps if Obama picks a new moderate it would be her. Thats why Obama has to balance short term political moderate hurting GOP this year versus long term centre of Supreme Court.

It's complicated, the risk the Dems are facing with a Trump presidency by 2020 7 out of the 9 supremes will have been nominated by Republican Presidents.

Now I know Stevens and Souter were nominated by GOP Presidents and turned out to be liberal Justices, but the Dems don't want a 7/2 Republican Supreme Court, coupled with the GOP controlling the The White House, The House and The Senate.

NorfolkTilIDie

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

I agree but he could end up putting Clinton in bind if Obama puts forward a moderate that she then has to nominate when she wants a liberal Scalia.

The next President may get to nominate a further three nominees during their term.

I can see Ginsburg and Breyer standing down if we have a Clinton Presidency.

Ginsburg said under Obama that sitting president shouldn't be a factor in a justices decision. She will prolly get too old though and retire for genuine health reasons.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Zims, I wonder how much of that 48% came from Alan Johnson's negotiation.

NorfolkTilIDie

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

1) Opponent is Trump

2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

That wil also boost turnout in her favour.

Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.

Thats not right. For example if Scalia is replaced by a liberal, then Kennedy would no longer be the median justice but the fourth most conservative. It would be Kagan probably. Or perhaps if Obama picks a new moderate it would be her. Thats why Obama has to balance short term political moderate hurting GOP this year versus long term centre of Supreme Court.

It's complicated, the risk the Dems are facing with a Trump presidency by 2020 7 out of the 9 supremes will have been nominated by Republican Presidents.

Now I know Stevens and Souter were nominated by GOP Presidents and turned out to be liberal Justices, but the Dems don't want a 7/2 Republican Supreme Court, coupled with the GOP controlling the The White House, The House and The Senate.

Would Trump even appoint doctrinaire conservatives though?? I have no idea. I guess Republican Senate might force him to. But he coud work with Democrats. Who knows??

It also ain't clear that a nominee hanging in the air would help Clinton more than Trump. If she consolidates Dems while GOP vote is split by Trump being nominee, it could help him.

Indigo

TheScreamingEagles said:

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

His main concern will be to find someone without the slightest hint of a skeleton in the cupboard, the very last thing he wants to do is give the Republicans a concrete reason to reject his candidate, which by the time an alternate is found will be too late. So who ever he has in mind is probably being extremely closely looked at before they are proposed (and then looked at even more closely).

TheScreamingEagles

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

So far the only swing state Hillary has pulled any trees up in is Virginia. Performed poorly in Colorado and band average in Nevada.

That Michigan result could well be an omen for the General. Minnesota similiarly having a polling miss makes me wonder if she'll perform poorly in OH, WI, PA too.

My logic in backing Hillary to win in November is Dems will unite and back her because her

1) Opponent is Trump

2) The next POTUS may well get to appoint four justices to the Supreme Court.

That wil also boost turnout in her favour.

Keep forgetting the Supreme Court angle - that is going to be a big motivator for Dems of all persuasions. Not at all clear to me what type of Justices Trump would nominate if POTUS, his social policies are a mixed bag to say the least, not a mainstream conservative. The core won't get behind Trump in anything like the numbers they would behind Cruz as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Ginsberg is 82, Kennedy is 79, Breyer 77.

Given that Obama has nominated 2 justices so far, you could see a liberal majority on the court.

Kennedy is the key one, he's a Republican, but he's the key swing vote in the court.

Whoever gets to replaces him, will control the court for decades.

Thats not right. For example if Scalia is replaced by a liberal, then Kennedy would no longer be the median justice but the fourth most conservative. It would be Kagan probably. Or perhaps if Obama picks a new moderate it would be her. Thats why Obama has to balance short term political moderate hurting GOP this year versus long term centre of Supreme Court.

It's complicated, the risk the Dems are facing with a Trump presidency by 2020 7 out of the 9 supremes will have been nominated by Republican Presidents.

Now I know Stevens and Souter were nominated by GOP Presidents and turned out to be liberal Justices, but the Dems don't want a 7/2 Republican Supreme Court, coupled with the GOP controlling the The White House, The House and The Senate.

Would Trump even appoint doctrinaire conservatives though?? I have no idea. I guess Republican Senate might force him to. But he coud work with Democrats. Who knows??

It also ain't clear that a nominee hanging in the air would help Clinton more than Trump. If she consolidates Dems while GOP vote is split by Trump being nominee, it could help him.

As I said it is very messy and I'm glad our judicial appointments aren't so politically charged but based on merit.

TheScreamingEagles

I might need to lie down, I think I agree with Simon Heffer

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/707576993072738305

Pulpstar

Straw in the wind for Bernie in North Carolina ?

Michelle Freeze ·
Graduate Assistant at Appalachian State University

"I disagree with the lumping of North Carolina in with Virginia and SC. This is a large, purple, big university state, and we carry 121 Dem delegates. The natives are sick of their Republican overlords, Gov. McCrory and Sen. Burr. NC went for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012, both wins by less than 2%. We are the greatest unknown out there and historically more liberal than other Southern states. In the first two days of early voting, lines at Appalachian State (the whitest part of the state, in the Blue Ridge mountains) were 2 hours long. The kids are turning out for Bernie. Traditional polling methods aren't catching the millennial vote."

NorfolkTilIDie

Looking at SCOTUS Clarence Thomas has been great for right wingers. Most conservative justice since Depression, beeing there 24 years and hes still only 67.

Plato_Says

House of Commons
The English votes for English laws procedure applies to the #EnterpriseBill. Find out more about #EVEL https://t.co/teRUoHF3w9

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, does that mean the SNP won't be able to play silly buggers?

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Straw in the wind for Bernie in North Carolina ?

Michelle Freeze ·
Graduate Assistant at Appalachian State University

"I disagree with the lumping of North Carolina in with Virginia and SC. This is a large, purple, big university state, and we carry 121 Dem delegates. The natives are sick of their Republican overlords, Gov. McCrory and Sen. Burr. NC went for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012, both wins by less than 2%. We are the greatest unknown out there and historically more liberal than other Southern states. In the first two days of early voting, lines at Appalachian State (the whitest part of the state, in the Blue Ridge mountains) were 2 hours long. The kids are turning out for Bernie. Traditional polling methods aren't catching the millennial vote."

Who needs political analysts when you have graduate assistants.

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

It's complicated, the risk the Dems are facing with a Trump presidency by 2020 7 out of the 9 supremes will have been nominated by Republican Presidents.

Now I know Stevens and Souter were nominated by GOP Presidents and turned out to be liberal Justices, but the Dems don't want a 7/2 Republican Supreme Court, coupled with the GOP controlling the The White House, The House and The Senate.

Alistair's Law of Two Thousand and Sixteen American Election (ALTTSAE)

If SCOTUS nomination is still live by 5th November then Democrats win.



Republican senators up for are between a rock and a hard place. If they do their job and hold hearings then they get primaried - they do not want to get into a purity cotnest just before the general. If they do not hold hearings then Sanders voters (assuming Sanders loses and Hilary wins) who otherwise would sit on their hands turn out and vote for Hilary. Not grudgingly but with relish because SCOTUS Trumps the executive.

There is a slim chance that after the Senatorial primary deadlines have past that the Senate could hold hearings but I strongly doubt it.


Alistair's Observation on American Elections (AOAE):

The Republicans have won the presidential popular vote once in the last 6 elections.

TCPoliticalBetting

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.

That's my feeling too, but the counter-argument is that to do so would pre-empt a decision which really should be taken by the team set up to handle Brexit - in reality, by Cameron's successor.

I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiations are done. I am not sure who he would trust to do it otherwise.

Yeah, I agree. The possible successors in that scenario are those who (in Cameron's eyes) would make a bad situation for the Cameron legacy considerably worse. Hence the idea that he'd cling on and try and engineer a GE so he could have his increase in the majority as a consolation prize (and ideally get clear before the next Indyref).

I don't know him personally, but I get the impression that he's not far off an "oh, sod it" point, and if the vote was Leave I can't see him wanting to have a year or two haggling over the consequences. I think he'd shrug, say "OK, someone else sort it out", and quit within 3 months. ..

I agree with NickP. Also Samantha's influence.

Plato_Says

It's an extraordinary uplift.

john_zims said:

@Plato_Says


'The last Labour government took capitulation to extremes. The National Audit Office says doctors’ pay rose 48 per cent between 2000 and 2009. NHS productivity fell 2 per cent.'


Massive pay increases with falling productivity and now they want to put their snouts deeper in the trough.

Polruan

SeanT said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I would have thought almost straight away. He could reasonably take a few weeks for immediate discussions with the rest of the EU and with his own Government to prepare things but I certainly don't think that the plan suggested by some Leavers that he could do any real negotiating prior to formally invoking Article 50 really has any strength.

That's my.

I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiationse.

Yeah, I ae next Indyref).

I dous.

You think Labour MPs would agree to an election if the polls, as now, pointed to absolute destruction under Corbyn? Why the F would they do that?

Far better to let the Tories stew in their euro-juice, let their phile-v-sceptic recriminations continue, and in the meantime try and topple Corbyn and get someone sane in, for 2020.


I agree Cameron is the type to walk away. He's a family man, he's got a hinterland, he's already been doing the leader job for ten years. AND he's announced he's quitting anyhow.

What on earth would compel him to stand there in the Commons, for another pointless year, when he's just the butt of ridicule from sceptics, the object of hatred for europhiles?

And in the meantime he'd have to try and negotiate a decent Brexit which he told us was impossible, thus proving he's a liar, to boot.

Just bonkers. He'd go.

I remember having this same argument pre-indyref, when I said Cameron would resign if he lost the Union. Plenty of pb-ers pooh-poohed me, especially the loyalist Tories.

A few weeks after the vote, it was revealed that Yes, he'd have quit almost immediately. I was right then and I'm right now.

3 reasons the GE would happen

1) you can't be seen as afraid of a GE when you're the opposition. You just can't. It's over for a LOTO who turns down the chance to go to the country. Deselection stops being a fairly abstract concept for MPs who rebel against Corbyn's opportunity to push for the Glorious New Dawn.

2) In addition Labour right wingers would correctly see the possibility of defenestrating Corbyn in favour of a unity candidate ("Seriously? You expect us to follow him into a GE?")

3) as (I think) Robert pointed out, any law requiring two thirds of the house is a nullity as it can be repealed with a simple majority. So a majority government can call an early GE. Labour know this so why take the risk of looking like cowards by refusing to vote for an early election, then having one anyway when the first Tory attack line will be "even Labour don't think they should win"?

That's why.

Plato_Says

Yup

The ‘English votes for English laws’ process affects all Government bills (except for a few technical bills such as Consolidation Bills), founding resolutions for Finance Bills, and Lords Amendments and subsequent messages. It does not affect Private Members’ Bills, or bills certified as Scottish or referred to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Grand Committees.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, does that mean the SNP won't be able to play silly buggers?

GeoffM

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

OllyT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent

Just following up on the last thread - I assume you believe Obama will get a replacement for Scalia in place before he goes?

I don't know.

I think he'll try, and the GOP Senate will stop it.

If he was astute, he'd nominate an eminently qualified minority female and watch the GOP try and block her and see how badly it plays out with /undecided/floating voters (and energising the Dem base)

The optics would be horrible for the GOP.

The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade would electrify the election

Wasn't there a report that a moderate Republican governor was being vetted as a possibility?

Brian Sandoval, Nevada

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/

Plato_Says

This is quite interesting - 10 most useless passports

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/arab-countries-visa-passport-restrictions-981352555

FrancisUrquhart

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, would imagine North Korea and Eritrea must be vying for the number one spot, given trying to leave the country probably leads to either death or a 50 year stint in a concentration camp.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/707583504847138816

FrancisUrquhart

3 of the robbers are only going to serve 3.5 years.

Plato_Says

Afghanistan is winning right now.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, would imagine North Korea and Eritrea must be vying for the number one spot, given trying to leave the country probably leads to either death or a 50 year stint in a concentration camp.

FrancisUrquhart

Jesus Christ one those involved even got a away with a suspended sentence.

TCPoliticalBetting

According to Sky News Faisal, Osborne's sunday trading law heading for a defeat. His amendment seems to have been tabled too late. Another uturn/defeat that may be partly a result of a part time CofE?

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, that always seems to have been a rough part of the world, alas.

flightpath01

Polruan said:

SeanT said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

...

That's my.

I still have a feeling Cameron will stay at least until those negotiationse.

Yeah, I ae next Indyref).

I dous.

You think Labour MPs would agree to an election if the polls, as now, pointed to absolute destruction under Corbyn? Why the F would they do that?

Far better to let the Tories stew in their euro-juice, let their phile-v-sceptic recriminations continue, and in the meantime try and topple Corbyn and get someone sane in, for 2020.


I agree Cameron is the type to walk away. He's a family man, he's got a hinterland, he's already been doing the leader job for ten years. AND he's announced he's quitting anyhow.

What on earth would compel him to stand there in the Commons, for another pointless year, when he's just the butt of ridicule from sceptics, the object of hatred for europhiles?

And in the meantime he'd have to try and negotiate a decent Brexit which he told us was impossible, thus proving he's a liar, to boot.

Just bonkers. He'd go.

I remember having this same argument pre-indyref, when I said Cameron would resign if he lost the Union. Plenty of pb-ers pooh-poohed me, especially the loyalist Tories.

A few weeks after the vote, it was revealed that Yes, he'd have quit almost immediately. I was right then and I'm right now.

3 reasons the GE would happen

1) you can't be seen as afraid of a GE when you're the opposition. You just can't. It's over for a LOTO who turns down the chance to go to the country. Deselection stops being a fairly abstract concept for MPs who rebel against Corbyn's opportunity to push for the Glorious New Dawn.

2) In addition Labour right wingers would correctly see the possibility of defenestrating Corbyn in favour of a unity candidate ("Seriously? You expect us to follow him into a GE?")

3) as (I think) Robert pointed out, any law requiring two thirds of the house is a nullity as it can be repealed with a simple majority. So a majority government can call an early GE. Labour know this so why take the risk of looking like cowards by refusing to vote for an early election, then having one anyway when the first Tory attack line will be "even Labour don't think they should win"?

That's why.

There is no reason for a general election - thats why we are having a referendum. General elections cover a whole range of issues.
If there were some constitutional consequence to leaving the EU then that can be voted on in another referendum. Any future treaty changes to the EU can also be voted on in a referendum.

FrancisUrquhart

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

flightpath01

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

Getting caught?

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

RobD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

According to Sky News Faisal, Osborne's sunday trading law heading for a defeat. His amendment seems to have been tabled too late. Another uturn/defeat that may be partly a result of a part time CofE?

The SNPs position is petty. It's okay for us but we can't let you have it.

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

3.5 years for a 67 year old could well not be that at all.

RobD

Plato_Says said:

It's an extraordinary uplift.

john_zims said:

@Plato_Says


'The last Labour government took capitulation to extremes. The National Audit Office says doctors’ pay rose 48 per cent between 2000 and 2009. NHS productivity fell 2 per cent.'


Massive pay increases with falling productivity and now they want to put their snouts deeper in the trough.

Didn't you get the memo... It's nothing to do with pay!!

NorfolkTilIDie

Plato_Says said:

Yup

The ‘English votes for English laws’ process affects all Government bills (except for a few technical bills such as Consolidation Bills), founding resolutions for Finance Bills, and Lords Amendments and subsequent messages. It does not affect Private Members’ Bills, or bills certified as Scottish or referred to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Grand Committees.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, does that mean the SNP won't be able to play silly buggers?

The SNP can still have influence because English votes laws still have to pass whole UK parliament after Hague watered down proposals.

nigel4england

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

3.5 years for a 67 year old could well not be that at all.

It's what I get for reading the thread backwards! Some of them were much longer than others it would seem.

NorfolkTilIDie

On SCOTUS, Ketanji Brown Jackson seems to be perfect appointee from Obama's view.

RobD

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

nigel4england

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

runnymede

The SNPs position is petty. It's okay for us but we can't let you have it.

As predicted the SNP are going to try to be as obstructive and unhelpful as possible, just like the Irish Party a century or so ago.

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

3.5 years for a 67 year old could well not be that at all.

It's what I get for reading the thread backwards! Some of them were much longer than others it would seem.

Nope...of the 5 with total of 34 years, the max anybody has got is 7, but been told only have to serve half that. So only 3.5 years in the klink.

In terms of "gaming" the situation (and putting aside that it is said Basil has most of the loot), the chance to make millions with the best case scenario away free, the worst that could happen is 3.5 behind bars, seems like a very good offer.

TCPoliticalBetting

ex Ambassador, worth a read.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12189082/Vladimir-Putin-wants-Britain-to-vote-for-Brexit-but-that-doesnt-mean-we-shouldnt.html

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

3.5 years for a 67 year old could well not be that at all.

It's what I get for reading the thread backwards! Some of them were much longer than others it would seem.

Nope...of the 5 with total of 34 years, the max anybody has got is 7, but been told only have to serve half that.

But 5 times 7 is 35. Something doesn't add up.

watford30

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

3.5 years for a 67 year old could well not be that at all.

It's what I get for reading the thread backwards! Some of them were much longer than others it would seem.

Nope...of the 5 with total of 34 years, the max anybody has got is 7, but been told only have to serve half that.

But 5 times 7 is 35. Something doesn't add up.

4 x 7, 1 for 6. Max to serve half.

NickPalmer

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/707583504847138816

The striking thing there is Goldsmith's low score on absolutely everything. I don't think it's because people have pondered his thoughts and disagree with them. It's that they haven't noticed that he has any thoughts, except maybe on Heathrow (on which they tend to disagree with him).

RobD

SeanT said:

Much as I like Ruth Davidson, I can't see Scotland turning Tory, so Scottish Labour it is. They might revive quite well by 2020, which puts a different gloss on the next election. And gives food for thought to complacent, gloating Tories.

But gloating is what we do best and disappointed in your lack of faith in the Scottish Tory Surge (TM).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, might the reverse not be the case?

If independence is off the table then the SNP have that as an ideal, but voting for the party becomes a matter of competence/standing up for Scotland rather than risking (as some would see it) another independence referendum. In short, floating voters can continue to vote SNP without worrying it could lead to independence.

Not sure how Corbyn plays in Scotland.

nigel4england

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

FrancisUrquhart

Lord Janner 'abused his position as an MP to sexually assault 30 victims at hotels and children's homes from 1955 to 1988', inquiry into historic abuse hears

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3483918/Lord-Janner-abused-position-MP-sexually-assault-30-victims-hotels-children-s-homes-1955-1988-inquiry-historic-abuse-hears.html

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Not exactly much of detenterant.

A substantial part of the remainder of their lives locked up?

3.5 years for a 67 year old could well not be that at all.

It's what I get for reading the thread backwards! Some of them were much longer than others it would seem.

Nope...of the 5 with total of 34 years, the max anybody has got is 7, but been told only have to serve half that.

But 5 times 7 is 35. Something doesn't add up.

4 x 7, 1 for 6. Max to serve half.

Ok, was confused with the 3.5 you mentioned earlier, for time with good behaviour. Who knows, they might die in prison which may cheer you up!

TheScreamingEagles

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/707583504847138816

The striking thing there is Goldsmith's low score on absolutely everything. I don't think it's because people have pondered his thoughts and disagree with them. It's that they haven't noticed that he has any thoughts, except maybe on Heathrow (on which they tend to disagree with him).

To be London Mayor you need a very big personality, and be passionate/proud of London.

You don't have to agree with them politically, but Ken, Boris and Sadiq have it, but Zac doesn't

Zac gives off a very disinterested appearance from this distance.

RobD

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

But why would they need to break in there, something of interest in the vault they wanted to recover? I'm sure they could manage a much tidier job than this lot.

Plato_Says

Tom Harris
A new member of the Labour Party, ladies and gentlemen. (via @GuidoFawkes) https://t.co/8AeaznvpGj

MattW

Plato_Says said:

House of Commons
The English votes for English laws procedure applies to the #EnterpriseBill. Find out more about #EVEL https://t.co/teRUoHF3w9

I like that the official flowchart recognises the "Ping-Pong" stage.

Plato_Says

Court News
Danny Jones, who used to wear his mum's dressing gown and a Tommy Cooper-style fez to bed, thanks judge as he is jailed for seven years

RobD

Plato_Says said:

Tom Harris
A new member of the Labour Party, ladies and gentlemen. (via @GuidoFawkes) https://t.co/8AeaznvpGj

He's laying the foundations for a thousand year (PB) Tory Reich!

TheScreamingEagles

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

There's a belief that judges are lenient on older non violent/sexual offences convicts, simply because prisons aren't able to deal with OAP prisoners.

A lot of have bunk beds which make it awkward for OAPS, nor do they have the health facilities to look after them, which leads to constant visits to NHS Hospitals, which is a pain for the prison service.

RodCrosby

FrancisUrquhart said:

3 of the robbers are only going to serve 3.5 years.

That's because it was a burglary, not a robbery...

nigel4england

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

But why would they need to break in there, something of interest in the vault they wanted to recover? I'm sure they could manage a much tidier job than this lot.

Watch The Bank Job, very similar thing.

Perhaps it's easier to hang it on some old lags in a suitable deal then bring suspicion on themselves, it seems these so called sophisticated career criminals did pretty much all they could to get caught.

All apart from the mystery bloke, the one that had the keys to let them in!

Plato_Says

My favourite from Remain today

Stronger In
Brexit could leave UK in same position as Bolivia, say top business leaders. https://t.co/d2WOAVLxJM https://t.co/UP88UD1IDh

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, I'm not persuaded by your claim that Sadiq Khan is in possession of a personality.

NickPalmer

GeoffM said:

Brian Sandoval, Nevada

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/

Thanks - interesting analysis.

TheWhiteRabbit

RodCrosby said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

3 of the robbers are only going to serve 3.5 years.

That's because it was a burglary, not a robbery...

Of non-domestic premises with nobody present.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

One for Dr Sox: the Vardy Quake
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/03/leicester-city-fans-caused-an-earthquake-celebrating-last-gasp-ulloa-goal/

He might also (ahem) be interested in another link towards the end of the article ...

nigel4england

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

There's a belief that judges are lenient on older non violent/sexual offences convicts, simply because prisons aren't able to deal with OAP prisoners.

A lot of have bunk beds which make it awkward for OAPS, nor do they have the health facilities to look after them, which leads to constant visits to NHS Hospitals, which is a pain for the prison service.

In that case then as I'm 60 with a wonky leg I'll start looking for a suitable target!

RobD

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

But why would they need to break in there, something of interest in the vault they wanted to recover? I'm sure they could manage a much tidier job than this lot.

Watch The Bank Job, very similar thing.

Perhaps it's easier to hang it on some old lags in a suitable deal then bring suspicion on themselves, it seems these so called sophisticated career criminals did pretty much all they could to get caught.

All apart from the mystery bloke, the one that had the keys to let them in!

Which suggests an inside job rather than spooks.

MattW

NorfolkTilIDie said:

On SCOTUS, Ketanji Brown Jackson seems to be perfect appointee from Obama's view.

At present Jackson is a District Court Judge of 2-3 years' experience, having been appointed by Obama.

How many layers is that jumping, and does that constitute adequate experience to be a member of the SCOTUS?

As I recall, it is District Court beneath Appellate Court beneath Supreme Court in the State System, and District beneath Circuit beneath Supreme Court in the Federal system.

Hmm.

TheScreamingEagles

nigel4england said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

There's a belief that judges are lenient on older non violent/sexual offences convicts, simply because prisons aren't able to deal with OAP prisoners.

A lot of have bunk beds which make it awkward for OAPS, nor do they have the health facilities to look after them, which leads to constant visits to NHS Hospitals, which is a pain for the prison service.

In that case then as I'm 60 with a wonky leg I'll start looking for a suitable target!

My advice, break into a bank, and rob them, when they are shut*

I know it's the Mail, but this kinda gives an outline, the cost is an issue, given prison budgets are being cut/frozen.

Prison governors are being forced to upgrade jail cells to cope with a boom in pensioner prisoners - following a decade long crack down in historic sex abusers.

The number of prisoners aged over 60 has soared by 130 per cent in the last ten years as OAP abusers like BBC star Stuart Hall and publicist Max Clifford are finally convicted of their crimes.

This is far more than other age groups. Overall, prison numbers have gone up by 17 per cent. People aged 60 and over are the fastest growing age group in prisons - largely fuelled by a dramatic rise in historic sex abuse cases.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647619/Surge-pension-age-prisoners-Specially-adapted-cells-needed-cope-wave-geriatric-thugs-sex-offenders.html

*Note this isn't legal advice

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

watford30 said:

nigel4england said:

RobD said:

nigel4england said:

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

5 men jailed for combined 34 years for the Hatton garden job.

That seems rather lenient.

No one got hurt. They're all old. It's also the ballpark for this kind of gig, I think.

Something not right about the whole thing, darker forces involved is my tin foil view.

Forces with what motive?

To be honest I'm not sure but having watched The Bank Job and the emergence of the mystery Basil, together with the lenient sentences something is definitely not right about the whole business

Tin foil hattery. Spooks would be in and out of that vault, without leaving a trace.

Then set up some willing old lags for it, a good few quid for lenient sentences and everyone is happy.

Tin foil hattery probably but you have to admit something is not right.

But why would they need to break in there, something of interest in the vault they wanted to recover? I'm sure they could manage a much tidier job than this lot.

Watch The Bank Job, very similar thing.

Perhaps it's easier to hang it on some old lags in a suitable deal then bring suspicion on themselves, it seems these so called sophisticated career criminals did pretty much all they could to get caught.

All apart from the mystery bloke, the one that had the keys to let them in!

Which suggests an inside job rather than spooks.

Was I the only one who found the owners interesting....and I believe they have now gone out of business.

SouthamObserver

RobD said:

Plato_Says said:

Tom Harris
A new member of the Labour Party, ladies and gentlemen. (via @GuidoFawkes) https://t.co/8AeaznvpGj

He's laying the foundations for a thousand year (PB) Tory Reich!

Nick Palmer says Jeremy's very polite though. It would be bad manners not to allow terrorist sympathisers and 9/11 deniers into the Labour party; especially when you agree with them:

https://twitter.com/moorlanddragon/status/707575934522695680

Plato_Says

PA
This is how MPs intend to vote in the EU referendum | by @ian_a_jones https://t.co/zneiK5Eztj

Richard_Nabavi

O/T: Good article on the horse-trading in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/talk-is-cheap-as-all-wait-to-see-what-happens-next-1.2565247

People close to him say Martin’s judgment is that it is not in Fianna Fáil’s interests to join a government with Kenny. That is precisely, he reasons, what he spent the general election trying to prevent.

But the blunt truth about Martin’s position is that even if he did want to cut a deal for a grand coalition with Kenny, he could not currently get such an arrangement through his parliamentary party. And even if he forced it through there, he could not secure the agreement of a special ardfheis that the party rules require. Sources at all levels of Fianna Fáil are absolutely adamant on this latter point.

Basically FF are trying to avoid going into government, and FG are trying to avoid a minority government which FF can bring down at any time.

FrancisUrquhart

This could be quite a big decision...certainly is for trunki. Seems like basically there is no legal protect on design.

Jeremy Drew, the head of retail at law firm RPC, said the ruling would “send shockwaves through design-driven businesses. It’s highly likely that other businesses may now begin to see cheaper versions of their well-known original registered designs coming on to the market.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/09/kiddee-trumps-trunki-in-battle-of-the-suitcases

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

O/T: Good article on the horse-trading in Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/talk-is-cheap-as-all-wait-to-see-what-happens-next-1.2565247

People close to him say Martin’s judgment is that it is not in Fianna Fáil’s interests to join a government with Kenny. That is precisely, he reasons, what he spent the general election trying to prevent.

But the blunt truth about Martin’s position is that even if he did want to cut a deal for a grand coalition with Kenny, he could not currently get such an arrangement through his parliamentary party. And even if he forced it through there, he could not secure the agreement of a special ardfheis that the party rules require. Sources at all levels of Fianna Fáil are absolutely adamant on this latter point.

Basically FF are trying to avoid going into government, and FG are trying to avoid a minority government which FF can bring down at any time.

Ah so they finished counting ?

SouthamObserver

FrancisUrquhart said:

This could be quite a big decision...certainly is for trunki. Seems like basically there is no legal protect on design.

Jeremy Drew, the head of retail at law firm RPC, said the ruling would “send shockwaves through design-driven businesses. It’s highly likely that other businesses may now begin to see cheaper versions of their well-known original registered designs coming on to the market.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/09/kiddee-trumps-trunki-in-battle-of-the-suitcases

Yep, it's a big one. This is our take:

http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=7f6929c0-9ff5-4bdf-8a15-f4ae80d37ffd

NorfolkTilIDie

MattW said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

On SCOTUS, Ketanji Brown Jackson seems to be perfect appointee from Obama's view.

At present Jackson is a District Court Judge of 2-3 years' experience, having been appointed by Obama.

How many layers is that jumping, and does that constitute adequate experience to be a member of the SCOTUS?

As I recall, it is District Court beneath Appellate Court beneath Supreme Court in the State System, and District beneath Circuit beneath Supreme Court in the Federal system.

Hmm.

Just been reading about this! Its a federal district court, which is last layer of trial courts where evidence comes out, so thats a type of experience that is just different to appeals courts. Only one SCOTUS member has this experience so it would bring diversity of experience. Many justices over years have no experience on federal courts at all before joining SCOTUS.

But if Republicans want to claim a talented black woman is insufficiently experienced when white men with less court experience have got their votes, they are welcome to argue so...