get a life , dou think of anything else other than your hatred of SNP and denigrating Scotland. Live a bit , go out for a walk , a pint , go to the football.
The government is raising the threshold for IHT to £1 million which will solve most of that problem
It might well do, Mr. Hyfud, but then I would suggest there is even less reason to keep it going. If the only people who are paying it are the reasonably wealthy, but ill-informed/stupid/unlucky, middle classes own houses worth more than £1m then the candle is not worth the game (again see Australia).
Furthermore, the people who make most out of IHT are the tax-planners and lawyers who charge serious fees for helping families avoid it. That money could be better used as investment in industry which will generate future prosperity.
Apologies to any tax-planners and tax-lawyers on here - I know there used to be at least one member of this site who made his, very handsome, living in this way.
There you go talking sense again, you'll never make it in politics young Llama.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
Well, there are all sorts of exemptions. Country houses with art collections, which are open to the public are exempt; agricultural land is exempt; business property and woodlands are either exempt or taxed at reduced rates; gifts to charities and political parties are exempt; gifts to spouses and civil partners are exempt; the first £325,000 is exempt (£650,000 if married).
As I understand it the 8 state thing isn't really an issue, because you can get the required majorities in later rounds as delegates become unpledged. Its not just the 1st round totals that matter.
It's not just the first round totals that matter but if Rule 40 stays in place then Rubio and Kasich will be starting on a big fat zero. If there are only two qualified candidates, there's a good chance that one of them will receive the required votes.
But the 8-state rule is an issue because even once delegates become unpledged, to gain a majority (note - not a plurality) of the delegates in eight states is a big ask for any candidate who didn't come to the convention with that kind of backing.
In fact, I'd say that if it stays in place, there's no way to see past Cruz or Trump and if it does stay in place, it's as good an indicator as you can get that there's not going to be an attempt to try.
My understanding is the 8-state rule is a one-time deal required to get into the vote proper. It's not something that is then revisited after the first ballot, effectively permitting nominations to be re-opened.
If there are two candidates that get through the gate, balloting must continue until one has a majority. If there's only one, the implication is they must be the ultimate winner, unless the rule is abolished.
As I understand it the 8 state thing isn't really an issue, because you can get the required majorities in later rounds as delegates become unpledged. Its not just the 1st round totals that matter.
It's not just the first round totals that matter but if Rule 40 stays in place then Rubio and Kasich will be starting on a big fat zero. If there are only two qualified candidates, there's a good chance that one of them will receive the required votes.
But the 8-state rule is an issue because even once delegates become unpledged, to gain a majority (note - not a plurality) of the delegates in eight states is a big ask for any candidate who didn't come to the convention with that kind of backing.
In fact, I'd say that if it stays in place, there's no way to see past Cruz or Trump and if it does stay in place, it's as good an indicator as you can get that there's not going to be an attempt to try.
My understanding is the 8-state rule is a one-time deal required to get into the vote proper. It's not something that is then revisited after the first ballot, effectively permitting nominations to be re-opened.
If there are two candidates that get through the gate, balloting must continue until one has a majority. If there's only one, the implication is they must be the ultimate winner, unless the rule is abolished.
That's certainly how I understand it.
But a situation where only one candidate qualifies for the ballot but that candidate doesn't have a majority would be absurd.
The government is raising the threshold for IHT to £1 million which will solve most of that problem
It might well do, Mr. Hyfud, but then I would suggest there is even less reason to keep it going. If the only people who are paying it are the reasonably wealthy, but ill-informed/stupid/unlucky, middle classes own houses worth more than £1m then the candle is not worth the game (again see Australia).
Furthermore, the people who make most out of IHT are the tax-planners and lawyers who charge serious fees for helping families avoid it. That money could be better used as investment in industry which will generate future prosperity.
Apologies to any tax-planners and tax-lawyers on here - I know there used to be at least one member of this site who made his, very handsome, living in this way.
Don't forget that tax-planners and lawyers are influential vested interests in Westminster.
It helps to explain why the UK tax system grows ever longer and more labyrinthine.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
I for one would refuse rescue from a racist, homophobic fire service (and indeed, any service that is not fully diverse in makeup must be racist and homophobic, even if they don't think they are), I would rather burn.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
Public sector needs to reflect the public demographics, I guess. I genuinely think it's a good thing, but we all know it's never going to happen. There are many cultural reasons why we can't attract recruits from a lot of Asian cultures, and it is definitely not an easy career choice for women. I think the way that we recruit, and the constant craving for government and employers to tick boxes makes it unappealing for minority applicants to apply.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
You don't seem to be taking account of the fact that each estate has [at least] one NRB...
Yeh, I saw that too. Well you know the old adage: birds of a feather flock together.
Hold on. Yesterday OrderOrder was reporting sources as saying Newsnight's Katz had been over-ruled on his first choice of a...wait for it... Sun journalist.
The previous employer really shouldn't be a bar to picking the best candidate....
The reason being given that the Guardian journalist was cheaper than the Sun journalist :-)
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
We don’t have anyone on here, do we, who dealt with Trump in his Scottish ventures? Just wondered what he was like “for real” rather than the public persona.
There was someone on here who knew someone who dealt with Trump. From what I remember he seemed really ruthless.
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
I for one would refuse rescue from a racist, homophobic fire service (and indeed, any service that is not fully diverse in makeup must be racist and homophobic, even if they don't think they are), I would rather burn.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
I for one would refuse rescue from a racist, homophobic fire service (and indeed, any service that is not fully diverse in makeup must be racist and homophobic, even if they don't think they are), I would rather burn.
Received my first leaflet from Britain Stronger in Europe in the High Street this morning, have yet to receive anything from Leave
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
(Um, I need to work on the graphics
Perhaps but at the moment they seem to be making the same mistake as Yes in indyref i.e. speaking mainly in big meetings and on twitter to the already converted
We don’t have anyone on here, do we, who dealt with Trump in his Scottish ventures? Just wondered what he was like “for real” rather than the public persona.
There was someone on here who knew someone who dealt with Trump. From what I remember he seemed really ruthless.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
I for one would refuse rescue from a racist, homophobic fire service (and indeed, any service that is not fully diverse in makeup must be racist and homophobic, even if they don't think they are), I would rather burn.
The government is raising the threshold for IHT to £1 million which will solve most of that problem
It might well do, Mr. Hyfud, but then I would suggest there is even less reason to keep it going. If the only people who are paying it are the reasonably wealthy, but ill-informed/stupid/unlucky, middle classes own houses worth more than £1m then the candle is not worth the game (again see Australia).
Furthermore, the people who make most out of IHT are the tax-planners and lawyers who charge serious fees for helping families avoid it. That money could be better used as investment in industry which will generate future prosperity.
Apologies to any tax-planners and tax-lawyers on here - I know there used to be at least one member of this site who made his, very handsome, living in this way.
It is difficult to sell scrapping IHT completely for the wealthy giving them an unearned windfall while cutting welfare benefits for the poorest
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
erm...
Are you sure? I was under the impression what MattW said was broadly correct. Councillors salaries etc.
Let's assume, conservatively, that 2% of these see the remaining member die every year. (Likely it'll be much higher, as young people are much less likely to be rich.) This means that very conservatively GBP80 billion of estates should be subject to inheritance tax.
Of which 40% should be subject to inheritance tax. Or GBP30bn, to be insanely conservative.
Actual tax take 8% of that level, or sub GBP4bn.
There are two explanations for this:
1. Brits aren't anywhere near as rich as the statistics suggest or 2. Really rich people don't pay inheritance tax
Your call.
Well, there are all sorts of exemptions. Country houses with art collections, which are open to the public are exempt; agricultural land is exempt; business property and woodlands are either exempt or taxed at reduced rates; gifts to charities and political parties are exempt; gifts to spouses and civil partners are exempt; the first £325,000 is exempt (£650,000 if married).
That's the problem. I'd sooner see if possible a single, simple, flat, no-lawyers system of say 5% IHT above the threshold without exceptions. No exceptions whatsoever, including for Duchies or the Crown Estates etc - if we're going to have an IHT system that would be much fairer for the middle class.
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
The BBC researched this, and found the practice widespread across all parties:
As part of a practice known as "tithing", all of the main political parties expect their representatives to make contributions to party funds.
For example, Liberal Democrat councillors are expected to donate 10% of their council pay to the party or face being dropped. Labour also imposes a compulsory levy on its representatives.
The Conservatives say they have banned tithing, but Conservative councillors told the programme's presenter, BBC Newsnight's political editor Michael Crick, that there was a moral pressure to contribute to the party.
...
Sir Jeremy Beecham, who was chair of Labour's National Executive Committee when the rules were changed, confirmed it was not possible to be an elected representative for the party without giving it money.
He added: "It is expected of Labour public representatives that we should contribute to the party to which we belong and whom we seek to represent and to help secure the support that we need to do our job as Labour party - or it may be Lib Dem or Conservative - representatives."
(Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.)
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
erm...
Are you sure? I was under the impression what MattW said was broadly correct. Councillors salaries etc.
IIRC Lib Dems had, and might have, a fairly formal system, and the others less so, though I seem to recall ructions when UKIP tried to get contributions from MEPs' "money-received".
But the Lib Dems have always been more willing to debate this kind of issue in public, which deserves a thumbs-up to them.
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
The BBC researched this, and found the practice widespread across all parties:
As part of a practice known as "tithing", all of the main political parties expect their representatives to make contributions to party funds.
For example, Liberal Democrat councillors are expected to donate 10% of their council pay to the party or face being dropped. Labour also imposes a compulsory levy on its representatives.
The Conservatives say they have banned tithing, but Conservative councillors told the programme's presenter, BBC Newsnight's political editor Michael Crick, that there was a moral pressure to contribute to the party.
...
Sir Jeremy Beecham, who was chair of Labour's National Executive Committee when the rules were changed, confirmed it was not possible to be an elected representative for the party without giving it money.
He added: "It is expected of Labour public representatives that we should contribute to the party to which we belong and whom we seek to represent and to help secure the support that we need to do our job as Labour party - or it may be Lib Dem or Conservative - representatives."
(Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.)
The article from seven years ago says that tithing was banned in the Conservatives so I don't think the practice is widespread across all parties.
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
The BBC researched this, and found the practice widespread across all parties:
As part of a practice known as "tithing", all of the main political parties expect their representatives to make contributions to party funds. For example, Liberal Democrat councillors are expected to donate 10% of their council pay to the party or face being dropped. Labour also imposes a compulsory levy on its representatives.
The Conservatives say they have banned tithing, but Conservative councillors told the programme's presenter, BBC Newsnight's political editor Michael Crick, that there was a moral pressure to contribute to the party.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8147353.stm Admittedly this was in 2009. Is there evidence that it has it changed? (Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.) Two Conservative Associations that I know of have no such tithing. At least half the councillors only pay the £25 membership fee. But I will ask Mr Crick next time I see him.
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
1948 when Dewey was picked as GOP nominee and 1952 when Stevenson was nominee for the Democrats
On the Lib Dems: I remember reading that they had a tithe system whereby all elected politicians donated a certain proportion of their income to the party. Given the culling of MPs, MEPs and councillors, that must've done massive damage to their financial position.
Worth noting they still got surprisingly good donations, though (I think recent figures had them on something like £800,000, compared to a few million for the Conservatives, and ahead of UKIP).
I thought tithing was common across all parties. Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
The BBC researched this, and found the practice widespread across all parties:
As part of a practice known as "tithing", all of the main political parties expect their representatives to make contributions to party funds. For example, Liberal Democrat councillors are expected to donate 10% of their council pay to the party or face being dropped. Labour also imposes a compulsory levy on its representatives.
The Conservatives say they have banned tithing, but Conservative councillors told the programme's presenter, BBC Newsnight's political editor Michael Crick, that there was a moral pressure to contribute to the party.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8147353.stm Admittedly this was in 2009. Is there evidence that it has it changed? (Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.)
Two Conservative Associations that I know of have no such tithing. At least half the councillors only pay the £25 membership fee. But I will ask Mr Crick next time I see him.
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
If Puerto Rico is a "state" for these purposes, Rubio has 1.
They're not all WTA by any means, although there are more of them, and the others will still deliver lopsided results for the winner.
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
No Comment.
Penning is also concerned about the number of female firefighters.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
Already happens. The actively encourage employees to tick their sexuality identification box, as they need to prove that they are a fully diverse service. The FRS have spent years worrying about why they can't recruit enough female and ethnic minority firefighters, and why the retention rate of female firefighters is significantly lower than for males. It's not rocket science, but management like to believe that it is.
Why do they need to be a 'fully diverse service' let alone be able to prove it ?
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
I for one would refuse rescue from a racist, homophobic fire service (and indeed, any service that is not fully diverse in makeup must be racist and homophobic, even if they don't think they are), I would rather burn.
Darwin award winner of the day.
humour bypass of the day
errr i was just replying in jest as well, do you not see the joke?
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
An interesting point is if Trump wins >1237 delegates and is the only one to pass Rule 40, then the Rules imply his coronation, as the only valid candidate.
Or do the GOP change Rule 40 simply to permit a formal ballot, say Trump v Cruz, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion?
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
1948 when Dewey was picked as nominee
LOL so not only not in my lifetime, but not in my parent's lifetime either. Also not under this current caucus/primary system with a large amount of winner takes all states at the end I believe.
Yet still this is spoken about ad nauseum every four years. It isn't happening, for it to happen would require more than just two competitors winning at the winner takes all stage.
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
If Puerto Rico is a "state" for these purposes, Rubio has 1.
They're not all WTA by any means, although there are more of them, and the others will still deliver lopsided results for the winner.
1952 (DEM), 1948 (REP)
Puerto Rico is a territory not a state surely. There are 50 states, I can't see any of the extra territories (and I include DC) counting.
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
If Puerto Rico is a "state" for these purposes, Rubio has 1.
They're not all WTA by any means, although there are more of them, and the others will still deliver lopsided results for the winner.
1952 (DEM), 1948 (REP)
Puerto Rico is a territory not a state surely. There are 50 states, I can't see any of the extra territories (and I include DC) counting.
Downthread someone said they'd checked, and for RNC purposes everything is a state...
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
If Evans headed them I'd go 50/50
The last Parliament was a perfect storm for UKIP - primarily because the primary protest party lost its protest purpose by being in government, the idea of holding a referendum wasn't believed and was decades in the waiting, it seemed like the most competent protest party, they were gaining in local elections and finally there was the belief that they had momentum and could win seats.
None of that is true now, other than the main first point which the LDs are doing their best to rectify by reverting to being a flippant and trivial protest party once more.
So bad I don't know why he just continued to refuse comment - explanations and clarifications that bad are counter productive among those who see them, so he might as well not have bothered.
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
Mark, I am expecting LD net losses in Scotland parl and Welsh Assembly but no change in Councillor numbers nor in the London Assembly total. What are your expectations?
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
Mark, I am expecting LD net losses in Scotland parl and Welsh Assembly but no change in Councillor numbers nor in the London Assembly total. What are your expectations?
Stauts Quo in Scottish Parl , uncertain re Wales , around 30 net gains in English councils though reduction in number of councillors on some councils ( Winchester for example ) will make the calculation of gains and losses hard to make .
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
1. Aguero - my captain. City draw 0-0 vs Norwich. 2. Kolorov - City defender not playing so get 0 points even for a clean sheet. 3. Bought 3x Leicester players in my team now.... 4. Sold Harry Kane from my team...... worked earlier this year...
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
In recognition of this, the government came up with the idea of social tariffs in 2010 - special lower tariffs for customers who have trouble affording a normal water bill. And it decided customers in general should pay for this.
The trouble is, customers don't want to pay for social tariffs.
Research by the Consumer Council for Water has shown they support the idea of such schemes but think they should be funded through public expenditure or by the water companies themselves.
I particularly enjoy how consumers think that consumers shouldn't pay for social tariffs, but instead, it should be funded "by the water companies themselves", who make said funds by dint of charging the selfsame consumers.
People wonder why chancellors of all stripes do all kinds of stupid gimmicks, putting things under stupid names, and creating stupid economic fictions. Well, it's because people are ...
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
UKIP support is clearly overstated in the online polls compared to the telephone polls and is IMO a contributory factor in the differences between the EU online and telephone poll figures .
In recognition of this, the government came up with the idea of social tariffs in 2010 - special lower tariffs for customers who have trouble affording a normal water bill. And it decided customers in general should pay for this.
The trouble is, customers don't want to pay for social tariffs.
Research by the Consumer Council for Water has shown they support the idea of such schemes but think they should be funded through public expenditure or by the water companies themselves.
I particularly enjoy how consumers think that consumers shouldn't pay for social tariffs, but instead, it should be funded "by the water companies themselves", who make said funds by dint of charging the selfsame consumers.
People wonder why chancellors of all stripes do all kinds of stupid gimmicks, putting things under stupid names, and creating stupid economic fictions. Well, it's because people are ...
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
UKIP support is clearly overstated in the online polls compared to the telephone polls and is IMO a contributory factor in the differences between the EU online and telephone poll figures .
It's a real shame that we don't seem to get ICM Phone polls for the EU. Still regard that as the Gold Standard and I won't transfer that title to ICM Online. It isn't the same thing.
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
UKIP support is clearly overstated in the online polls compared to the telephone polls and is IMO a contributory factor in the differences between the EU online and telephone poll figures .
Completely agree. Online polls overrepresent politically aware and well informed, who are more likely to vote Leave.
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
More likely is the possibility of zero Labour constituency seats. Isn't Orkney still fairly safe?
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
UKIP support is clearly overstated in the online polls compared to the telephone polls and is IMO a contributory factor in the differences between the EU online and telephone poll figures .
It's a real shame that we don't seem to get ICM Phone polls for the EU. Still regard that as the Gold Standard and I won't transfer that title to ICM Online. It isn't the same thing.
Agreed . You only have to compare results from Comres Online and Comres Phone polls to see that there is a fundamental difference between the 2 sets of results .
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
More likely is the possibility of zero Labour constituency seats. Isn't Orkney still fairly safe?
True. Is there a minimum number of seats that Kezia must get (including her own) to avoid resignation?
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
UKIP support is clearly overstated in the online polls compared to the telephone polls and is IMO a contributory factor in the differences between the EU online and telephone poll figures .
Completely agree. Online polls overrepresent politically aware and well informed, who are more likely to vote Leave.
Online polls also overstate obsesive tinfoil hatters!
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
More likely is the possibility of zero Labour constituency seats. Isn't Orkney still fairly safe?
True. Is there a minimum number of seats that Kezia must get (including her own) to avoid resignation?
1.
If her party gets one and its her own then who replaces her if she resigns?
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
More likely is the possibility of zero Labour constituency seats. Isn't Orkney still fairly safe?
True. Is there a minimum number of seats that Kezia must get (including her own) to avoid resignation?
1. If her party gets one and its her own then who replaces her if she resigns?
Actually quite funny. In some Councils is there a rule that you have to be an independent if there is only one of you?
I'm not looking for a bet, but how would the gamblers on here price up Ukip v Lib Dems in terms of votes at the next election?
Not a gambler but 30% UKIP, 70% LD in my opinion.
If Suzanne Evans headed them up UKIP would be a 90% certainty to be ahead of the LDs. Thankfully that will not happen.
The reason I asked was that there are so many known unknowns between now and then. I sort of think the Lib Dems are about as low as they can go but I can't see them going up that much. Ukip could cease to exist before the next election...or they may get an SNP style surge post-referendum.
36 council by elections so far in 2016 almost 50,000 votes Vote shares Lab 30.4% Con 30.0% LD.. 17.7% UKIP 9.3% Green 4.0% Others 8.6%
So do you think the GE polls are overstating Ukip and understating the Lib Dems?
UKIP support is clearly overstated in the online polls compared to the telephone polls and is IMO a contributory factor in the differences between the EU online and telephone poll figures .
Completely agree. Online polls overrepresent politically aware and well informed, who are more likely to vote Leave.
All the polls I have looked at over represent the young and under represent the old.
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
More likely is the possibility of zero Labour constituency seats. Isn't Orkney still fairly safe?
True. Is there a minimum number of seats that Kezia must get (including her own) to avoid resignation?
1. If her party gets one and its her own then who replaces her if she resigns?
Actually quite funny. In some Councils is there a rule that you have to be an independent if there is only one of you?
LOL, don't think there is in any of our Parliament's though (not counting the European Parliament which has insane byzantine rules).
If the LDs are nc and the Greens up 4% I cannot see how the LDs will hold onto 5 seats.
There has been a large number of Scottish council by elections since last May , Conservative vote share is up by 3-4% , Greens static at best , LDs static , SNP up and UKIP vanished .
You place a lot of faith in council by elections. In Scotland there is a possibility of zero LD parliament seats.
More likely is the possibility of zero Labour constituency seats. Isn't Orkney still fairly safe?
True. Is there a minimum number of seats that Kezia must get (including her own) to avoid resignation?
1. If her party gets one and its her own then who replaces her if she resigns?
Actually quite funny. In some Councils is there a rule that you have to be an independent if there is only one of you?
I believe you need to have two members to officially form a political group on a council, yes, for any purposes which involve group leadership, although since you are entitled to committee places when ungrouped individually, being member x, ungrouped, or member x, singular party member, makes little difference I'd have thought even if it applied to parliaments, which it likely doesn't.
An interesting point is if Trump wins >1237 delegates and is the only one to pass Rule 40, then the Rules imply his coronation, as the only valid candidate.
Or do the GOP change Rule 40 simply to permit a formal ballot, say Trump v Cruz, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion?
No, it'd be a coronation. The reason why Rule 40 was changed from five states (IIRC) to eight in 2012 was to stop Ron Paul from spoiling the party.
They may well change the rule anyway - it's a 'temporary' one but AIUI that just means it needs revisiting each convention.
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
I thought Rule 40 required a majority (not a plurality) so Rubio is still on zero. Not sure if Trump and Cruz lose any of theirs, not that I think it matters as Trump is getting a majority of delegates at the end of the day anyway.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
If Puerto Rico is a "state" for these purposes, Rubio has 1.
They're not all WTA by any means, although there are more of them, and the others will still deliver lopsided results for the winner.
1952 (DEM), 1948 (REP)
Puerto Rico is a territory not a state surely. There are 50 states, I can't see any of the extra territories (and I include DC) counting.
Downthread someone said they'd checked, and for RNC purposes everything is a state...
Comments
"Strauss-Kahn: Only 12 sex parties in three years"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31318120
It's not something that is then revisited after the first ballot, effectively permitting nominations to be re-opened.
If there are two candidates that get through the gate, balloting must continue until one has a majority. If there's only one, the implication is they must be the ultimate winner, unless the rule is abolished.
Be LEAVE!
(Um, I need to work on the graphics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35785838
The same Policing Minister Mike Penning who has done nothing about plods collaborating with industrial scale racist child rape in South Yorkshire.
Interesting set of priorities.
But a situation where only one candidate qualifies for the ballot but that candidate doesn't have a majority would be absurd.
It helps to explain why the UK tax system grows ever longer and more labyrinthine.
Give it a year or two and he'll be asking about their sexuality and disability proportions.
I thought your job was to rescue people from burning houses etc rather than being some diversity outreach co-ordinator.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-03-12/ken-livingstone-was-paid-8-000-fee-by-hedge-fund/
POKWAS.
Am I wrong?
Are you sure? I was under the impression what MattW said was broadly correct. Councillors salaries etc.
Admittedly this was in 2009.
Is there evidence that it has it changed?
(Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.)
Current forecast [already earned]
Trump 21 [7]
Cruz 4 [4]
Rubio 1 [1]
Kasich 0 [0]
According to current GOP rules it should be a Donald coronation...
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/708576660786909184
Are you sure, absolutely sure, that the Wail has got it right about something the LibDem leader suggests?
But the Lib Dems have always been more willing to debate this kind of issue in public, which deserves a thumbs-up to them.
Edited: Apostrophe.
This whole conversation is moot. The system is designed to avoid the risk of a brokered convention. Almost every single state remaining now is Winner Takes All, which eliminates the risk of split delegates, especially as both races now are down to two-horse races (realistically Kasich and Rubio are not going to start winning slates of states). In a two-horse race of winner takes all states of differing sizes the odds of a candidate not getting a clear majority are miniscule.
I can't recall a brokered convention other than in fiction (eg West Wing) in my entire adult lifetime, not sure if there's been any in my lifetime at all. When was the last one?
Admittedly this was in 2009.
Is there evidence that it has it changed?
(Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.)
The article from seven years ago says that tithing was banned in the Conservatives so I don't think the practice is widespread across all parties.
Admittedly this was in 2009. Is there evidence that it has it changed? (Personally, given the significantly large sums given to eg Councillors, I am quite happy for some of that to be used for political parties, though I would prefer that expenses and allowances were not large enough to permit full time Councillors.)
Two Conservative Associations that I know of have no such tithing. At least half the councillors only pay the £25 membership fee.
But I will ask Mr Crick next time I see him.
But I will ask Mr Crick next time I see him.
I would be interested to hear.
Thanks.
They're not all WTA by any means, although there are more of them, and the others will still deliver lopsided results for the winner.
1952 (DEM), 1948 (REP)
Or do the GOP change Rule 40 simply to permit a formal ballot, say Trump v Cruz, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion?
Yet still this is spoken about ad nauseum every four years. It isn't happening, for it to happen would require more than just two competitors winning at the winner takes all stage.
SNP: -1%
Con: +7%
Lab: -9%
Greens: +4%
LD: nc
UKIP: +3%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2011#Result
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-03-12/ken-livingstone-was-paid-8-000-fee-by-hedge-fund/
Vote shares
Lab 30.4%
Con 30.0%
LD.. 17.7%
UKIP 9.3%
Green 4.0%
Others 8.6%
No age restricted shortlists? After all, a criticism of politicians is that they are too often male, pale and stale.
Though in fairness the LDs and others have in fact had some very young candidates and MPs, if that is something people are concerned about.
The last Parliament was a perfect storm for UKIP - primarily because the primary protest party lost its protest purpose by being in government, the idea of holding a referendum wasn't believed and was decades in the waiting, it seemed like the most competent protest party, they were gaining in local elections and finally there was the belief that they had momentum and could win seats.
None of that is true now, other than the main first point which the LDs are doing their best to rectify by reverting to being a flippant and trivial protest party once more.
What are your expectations?
1. Aguero - my captain. City draw 0-0 vs Norwich.
2. Kolorov - City defender not playing so get 0 points even for a clean sheet.
3. Bought 3x Leicester players in my team now....
4. Sold Harry Kane from my team...... worked earlier this year...
Corbyn's Labour brand less popular than Tories. Quite an achievement.
People wonder why chancellors of all stripes do all kinds of stupid gimmicks, putting things under stupid names, and creating stupid economic fictions. Well, it's because people are ...
People wonder why chancellors of all stripes do all kinds of stupid gimmicks, putting things under stupid names, and creating stupid economic fictions. Well, it's because people are ...
Various members of my family would just be happy to be able to get water at the moment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35793206
... except the relative who lives on a farm and has her own supply from a well.
If her party gets one and its her own then who replaces her if she resigns?
new thread
.@SheriffClarke: "The goons need back off & they need to be silenced-not the people... on the side of law & order."
https://t.co/pTIPzOSSAo
They may well change the rule anyway - it's a 'temporary' one but AIUI that just means it needs revisiting each convention.
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD