As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
Well, who's back in Labour HQ, as of February? McBride. Hence this weeks co-ordinated, personal attacks on Cameron.
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
Well, who's back in Labour HQ, as of February? McBride. Hence this weeks co-ordinated, personal attacks on Cameron.
He is? He was saying that Corbyn would be out by the autumn not long ago.
You expect right wingers to be greedy, grasping, selfish, me, me, individuals.
Or, to put it another way, human.
Tyson us right! Tories are different, more selfish. Can always tell if a work colleague is a Tory. Always a struggle to get them to pay into the tea fund.
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
Well, who's back in Labour HQ, as of February? McBride. Hence this weeks co-ordinated, personal attacks on Cameron.
He is? He was saying that Corbyn would be out by the autumn not long ago.
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
Well, who's back in Labour HQ, as of February? McBride. Hence this weeks co-ordinated, personal attacks on Cameron.
He is? He was saying that Corbyn would be out by the autumn not long ago.
Actually I am UK resident, and pay all my taxes in the UK- and do not even look for tax efficiencies. I paid quite a lot year in UK tax last year, and probably could have halved that if I'd been remotely bothered. But there again I could probably have maybe doubled my income, if I could be bothered too.
The other thing I failed to mention about right wingers, is (aside from being predominantly greedy graspers) that they are proned to fits of jealousy and envy, especially if said person is a lefty.
A few lefties Tyson....most of the media & entertainment industry set their affairs to be tax efficient eg until recently most of the talent at the BBC.
Funny how Tyson chooses to reside in 'hideously white' Italy, where tax evasion is considered by most to be a national pastime.
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
Well, who's back in Labour HQ, as of February? McBride. Hence this weeks co-ordinated, personal attacks on Cameron.
He is? He was saying that Corbyn would be out by the autumn not long ago.
As someone who felt using EdM's dead Dad as a weapon against him was repulsive, I have to say proxy attacks on David Cameron via decisions his Dad took are pretty sickening too. Those who revelled in the Mail's attacks on Ralph Miliband, though, can hardly complain about what's happening now. They helped to create this culture.
I agree with the overall sentiment. But wasn't it McBride and co who used family members as a proxy way of attacking politicians? That's where this culture originated.
Well, who's back in Labour HQ, as of February? McBride. Hence this weeks co-ordinated, personal attacks on Cameron.
He is? He was saying that Corbyn would be out by the autumn not long ago.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
It's disingenuous to describe tax avoidance as "complying with the law". It's true that it's not breaking the law but it's not seen as that acceptable. It's not a smear to accuse a person of doing something they themselves have condemned (it may be a lie, but that's different).
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about tax avoidance? Now of course there’s nothing wrong with sensible tax planning and there are some things that governments want people to do that reduce tax bills, such as investing in a pension, a start up business or giving money to a charity. But there are some forms of avoidance that have become so aggressive that I think it is right to say these raise ethical issues, and it is time to call for more responsibility and for governments to act accordingly.
In the UK we’ve already committed hundreds of millions into this effort, but acting alone has its limits. Clamp down in one country and the travelling caravan of lawyers, accountants and financial gurus will just move on elsewhere. So we need to act together, including at the G8. If there are difficult questions about whether existing standards are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.
He is saying the law should be changed. As it has been. But if you comply with the law you are acting legally. There is no criminal offence of acting unethically. And other politicians and journalists are the last people to proclaim on ethics.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
Late to the party but...sorry if you don't know who plays at Loftus Road or Selhurst Park or which stops are adjacent to Bond St and are a grown up interested in the world around you, you really don't have any business wanting to be Mayor of London.
Well, that depends if you can read a map or listen to the Sonia announcements.
In real life, knowing the connections is more useful. For instance, I'd find more telling finding out if people know how to get from London Bridge to Heathrow by tube with a suitcase.
(Edit: don't answer, Sunil - I know *you* know...)
London Bridge to Gatwick is much easier - there are direct trains
I wouldn't expect anyone to know every tube station in London.
But not knowing the stations on the Central Line in the very middle of London does give the impression of someone who knows very, very little about London.
I'd let him off on that one. I live pretty centrally (Holloway Road) and use buses or tubes 7 days a week. I wouldn't have known any of those, and I don't care if the Mayor does or not. We're not playing Trivial Pursuit.
Late to the party but...sorry if you don't know who plays at Loftus Road or Selhurst Park or which stops are adjacent to Bond St and are a grown up interested in the world around you, you really don't have any business wanting to be Mayor of London.
Well, that depends if you can read a map or listen to the Sonia announcements.
In real life, knowing the connections is more useful. For instance, I'd find more telling finding out if people know how to get from London Bridge to Heathrow by tube with a suitcase.
(Edit: don't answer, Sunil - I know *you* know...)
Easy. Taxi to Hounslow East. Picadilly Line to your terminal.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
It's disingenuous to describe tax avoidance as "complying with the law". It's true that it's not breaking the law but it's not seen as that acceptable. It's not a smear to accuse a person of doing something they themselves have condemned (it may be a lie, but that's different).
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about rds are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.
He is saying the law should be changed. As it has been. But if you comply with the law you are acting legally. There is no criminal offence of acting unethically. And other politicians and journalists are the last people to proclaim on ethics.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
Money allows you to bend and stretch the law. This discredits law, because de facto there is one law for the rich and one for the rest. I suspect the number of banker prosecutions is not a reliable guide to how many bankers have broken the law. It might be a guide to how expensive it is to prosecute bankers.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
He is saying the law should be changed. As it has been. But if you comply with the law you are acting legally. There is no criminal offence of acting unethically. And other politicians and journalists are the last people to proclaim on ethics.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
Like it or not, there's two clear points: tax planning (which is fine, and is tax minimisation in a manner incentivised and anticipated by legislation), and tax evasion, which is criminal. In between there's tax avoidance which is seeking to benefit in a manner not anticipated by Parliament in drafting the relevant statute.
Film tax incentives were one such case. The law was pretty clear but the widespread exploitation of the various forms of relief was seen as aggressive avoidance and the courts are trying very hard to find ways to find the planning to be ineffective. David Cameron, talking about Jimmy Carr, didn't say "it's a fair cop, he complied with the law, and it's the Treasury's fault for putting forward bad law, but at least we changed it now". He described K2 as "dodgy", "completely wrong", "morally wrong" and backed Osborne's description of it as "morally repugnant".
It's true that this ambiguous space between planning and evasion is used to attack political opponents to a degree, but it's also true that there is political consensus that avoidance is unacceptable. As such, any politician who gets involved with it has got problems. I don't necessarily agree with the political consensus, but I can't see any grounds for defending politicians who go in for that kind of hypocrisy.
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
It's disingenuous to describe tax avoidance as "complying with the law". It's true that it's not breaking the law but it's not seen as that acceptable. It's not a smear to accuse a person of doing something they themselves have condemned (it may be a lie, but that's different).
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about rds are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.
He is saying the law should be changed. As it has been. But if you comply with the law you are acting legally. There is no criminal offence of acting unethically. And other politicians and journalists are the last people to proclaim on ethics.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
Money allows you to bend and stretch the law. This discredits law, because de facto there is one law for the rich and one for the rest. I suspect the number of banker prosecutions is not a reliable guide to how many bankers have broken the law. It might be a guide to how expensive it is to prosecute bankers.
It's more a reflection of the difficulty of prosecuting complex financial cases.
" It's made more complicated by Cruz's mastery of the intricate rules and details of the nominating process -- which has left Trump crying foul and threatening lawsuits in states like Louisiana, where Cruz netted 10 more delegates than Trump even though Trump won the state." ~ CNN
Eh, hasn't Trump got 18, same as Cruz, with 5 unclear?
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
It's disingenuous to describe tax avoidance as "complying with the law". It's true that it's not breaking the law but it's not seen as that acceptable. It's not a smear to accuse a person of doing something they themselves have condemned (it may be a lie, but that's different).
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about rds are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.
He is saying the law should be changed. As it has been. But if you comply with the law you are acting legally. There is no criminal offence of acting unethically. And other politicians and journalists are the last people to proclaim on ethics.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
Money allows you to bend and stretch the law. This discredits law, because de facto there is one law for the rich and one for the rest. I suspect the number of banker prosecutions is not a reliable guide to how many bankers have broken the law. It might be a guide to how expensive it is to prosecute bankers.
I was talking of banker convictions. If you include prosecutions leading to acquittals the rate is worse.
Still I agree that there should not be one law for the rich and one for the poor. I trust you will be supporting the campaign to get the cuts in Legal Aid reversed!
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
It's disingenuous to describe tax avoidance as "complying with the law". It's true that it's not breaking the law but it's not seen as that acceptable. It's not a smear to accuse a person of doing something they themselves have condemned (it may be a lie, but that's different).
This is David Cameron's view of what you call "complying with the law":
"Again let me put my cards squarely on the table. Of course there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is illegal. It can and should be subject to the full force of the criminal law. But what about rds are tough enough to tackle avoidance we need to ask them. If there are options for more multilateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders we need to explore them."
Broadly, it seems he'd like the rule of law to be discarded if enables those who pay too little tax to be more easily, and copiously, taxed. And he thinks it's an ethical issue.
He is saying the law should be changed. As it has been. But if you comply with the law you are acting legally. There is no criminal offence of acting unethically. And other politicians and journalists are the last people to proclaim on ethics.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
Money allows you to bend and stretch the law. This discredits law, because de facto there is one law for the rich and one for the rest. I suspect the number of banker prosecutions is not a reliable guide to how many bankers have broken the law. It might be a guide to how expensive it is to prosecute bankers.
I was talking of banker convictions. If you include prosecutions leading to acquittals the rate is worse.
Still I agree that there should not be one law for the rich and one for the poor. I trust you will be supporting the campaign to get the cuts in Legal Aid reversed!
Of Course the cuts are a disgrace, would be nice to see lawyers doing more to make law cheaper and less risky as well. £200 a letter = racketeering
Cameron can't make a simple statement that his family has never benefited from offshore tax planning. In my belief it simply isn't true.
snip
I was talking of banker convictions. If you include prosecutions leading to acquittals the rate is worse.
Still I agree that there should not be one law for the rich and one for the poor. I trust you will be supporting the campaign to get the cuts in Legal Aid reversed!
The Legal Aid system that was being systematically abused by the impoverished filthy rich, like Asil Nadir?
By all means reverse the cuts, but not until serious root and branch reform of the system as a whole, so that those in genuine need are helped, and not the blatant spongers.
Like it or not, there's two clear points: tax planning (which is fine, and is tax minimisation in a manner incentivised and anticipated by legislation), and tax evasion, which is criminal. In between there's tax avoidance which is seeking to benefit in a manner not anticipated by Parliament in drafting the relevant statute.
Film tax incentives were one such case. The law was pretty clear but the widespread exploitation of the various forms of relief was seen as aggressive avoidance and the courts are trying very hard to find ways to find the planning to be ineffective. David Cameron, talking about Jimmy Carr, didn't say "it's a fair cop, he complied with the law, and it's the Treasury's fault for putting forward bad law, but at least we changed it now". He described K2 as "dodgy", "completely wrong", "morally wrong" and backed Osborne's description of it as "morally repugnant".
It's true that this ambiguous space between planning and evasion is used to attack political opponents to a degree, but it's also true that there is political consensus that avoidance is unacceptable. As such, any politician who gets involved with it has got problems. I don't necessarily agree with the political consensus, but I can't see any grounds for defending politicians who go in for that kind of hypocrisy.
Yes, I think that nails it precisely.
As for Cameron, I don't think it's reasonable to blame him for whatever his father did, but he does seem to have got into difficulty over his finely-nuanced wording about present but not past or future benefits - the Telegraph front page is pretty damaging.
REMINDER: The next PB gathering takes place at the Shooting Star, near Liverpool Street Station on Friday April 8th from about 1830.
I hope to be there. I'll be able to report exciting first-hand news from the front-line of Tory civil war in the shires. (The exciting news being that there is no Tory civil war in the shires, or at least not in this shire).
As has been the case throughout the GOP primaries this year, there’s broad support in these preliminary Wisconsin results (seven in 10) for Trump’s proposal to ban non-U.S. Muslims from entering the country. Four in 10 GOP voters in Wisconsin say they made up their minds less than a month ago, similar to previous primaries, vs. six in 10 who decided in the last month.
Two more EU Referendum polls from Populus (shown on the Britain Elects spreadsheet). Populus online Leave 45% Remain 39%. Populus phone Leave 37%, Remain 48%.
Those are the Exit Poll numbers as published by the Huffington Post. I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
Those are the Exit Poll numbers as published by the Huffington Post. I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
Those are the Exit Poll numbers as published by the Huffington Post. I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
Couldn't sleep ?
I said what the heck lets see if I was right that Cruz is leading by double digits in the Exit Poll like I said.
So I was right. And I gave you the opportunity to make some money by posting the Exit Poll numbers 2 hours early.
Those are the Exit Poll numbers as published by the Huffington Post. I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
Couldn't sleep ?
I said what the heck lets see if I was right that Cruz is leading by double digits in the Exit Poll like I said.
So I was right. And I gave you the opportunity to make some money by posting the Exit Poll numbers 2 hours early.
Those are the Exit Poll numbers as published by the Huffington Post. I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
Couldn't sleep ?
I said what the heck lets see if I was right that Cruz is leading by double digits in the Exit Poll like I said.
So I was right. And I gave you the opportunity to make some money by posting the Exit Poll numbers 2 hours early.
What baffled me was that Trump won late deciders.
Subsample error, perhaps.
2 different Exit Polls showed Trump winning Late Deciders by 2 points (1 in 4 voters). So it's not a subsample error.
Maybe Trump trying to revive his campaign in the last few days had an effect.
Those are the Exit Poll numbers as published by the Huffington Post. I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
Couldn't sleep ?
I said what the heck lets see if I was right that Cruz is leading by double digits in the Exit Poll like I said.
So I was right. And I gave you the opportunity to make some money by posting the Exit Poll numbers 2 hours early.
What baffled me was that Trump won late deciders.
Subsample error, perhaps.
2 different Exit Polls showed Trump winning Late Deciders by 2 points (1 in 4 voters). So it's not a subsample error.
Maybe Trump trying to revive his campaign in the last few days had an effect.
First state I have seen where polls didn't have Trump's support leading in committed early.
I think Trump's campaign in the past few days had an effect, these are small places so have a couple of thousand attending a rally has a big network effect. Hoping it had a sufficient effect in those four CDs Trump targeted.
TBF, there's probably quite a few people for whom Sanders "inspires" them, but who ended up voting Hillary on pragmatic grounds.
Personally I think this is shaping up as a bit of a disappointment for Bernie: he probably needed to win by 10%+, but I'm not sure he's going to get it.
Looks like Cruz and Sanders have won in Wisconsin, as expected, main question the margin but am not waiting up another two hours to get that full breakdown and will check the full results in the morning.
TBF, there's probably quite a few people for whom Sanders "inspires" them, but who ended up voting Hillary on pragmatic grounds.
Personally I think this is shaping up as a bit of a disappointment for Bernie: he probably needed to win by 10%+, but I'm not sure he's going to get it.
Wisconsin is basically Michigan less Detroit so far as I can work out demographically. So yes, he should win...
If it's Ryan, they can wave goodbye to pretty much all the Trump voters and a good portion of the Ted Cruz voters won't bother.
But think of the fun and chaos if Trump runs as an Independent.
I'll actually be doing better with Cruz as the nominee financially, but he just won't be as entertaining. I think Trump will pack it in if he doesn't get the nomination. But he won't go down quietly.
Comments
Trump will be lucky to win any delegates.
I fully expect that Cruz will catch up with Trump in the betting markets before N.Y.
No need to stay up, goodnight.
Rumoured to be getting on well with Milne.
Easily.
The other thing I failed to mention about right wingers, is (aside from being predominantly greedy graspers) that they are proned to fits of jealousy and envy, especially if said person is a lefty.
Whatever one may think of bankers, there have been more MPs jailed for fraud than bankers and the press - both companies such as the Guardian and journalists have been energetic in minimising their tax in ways which have been legal - whatever I or anyone else may think of their ethics.
We have the rule of law in this country, a precious thing, and not something to be discarded to enable people to make up some ethical compass whose guiding principle seems to be to find the best way of attacking one's political opponents
London Bridge to Gatwick is much easier - there are direct trains
Neither Hillary nor Trump "waltzers", more clod hoppers.
Given the large number ND delegates Trump picked up, any are a bonus.
https://twitter.com/GaryEmineth/status/717150827064852480
That's a particularly special level of logic.
http://edition.cnn.com/specials/politics/predict
Film tax incentives were one such case. The law was pretty clear but the widespread exploitation of the various forms of relief was seen as aggressive avoidance and the courts are trying very hard to find ways to find the planning to be ineffective. David Cameron, talking about Jimmy Carr, didn't say "it's a fair cop, he complied with the law, and it's the Treasury's fault for putting forward bad law, but at least we changed it now". He described K2 as "dodgy", "completely wrong", "morally wrong" and backed Osborne's description of it as "morally repugnant".
It's true that this ambiguous space between planning and evasion is used to attack political opponents to a degree, but it's also true that there is political consensus that avoidance is unacceptable. As such, any politician who gets involved with it has got problems. I don't necessarily agree with the political consensus, but I can't see any grounds for defending politicians who go in for that kind of hypocrisy.
Eh, hasn't Trump got 18, same as Cruz, with 5 unclear?
( they've typoed the date of tge GQRR poll from 1st to 11th...
Still I agree that there should not be one law for the rich and one for the poor. I trust you will be supporting the campaign to get the cuts in Legal Aid reversed!
As for Cameron, I don't think it's reasonable to blame him for whatever his father did, but he does seem to have got into difficulty over his finely-nuanced wording about present but not past or future benefits - the Telegraph front page is pretty damaging.
REMINDER: The next PB gathering takes place at the Shooting Star, near Liverpool Street Station on Friday April 8th from about 1830.
https://twitter.com/jolingkent/status/717479031860408320
Given that it's a Friday, yes I should be able to make it
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-could-win-mississippi-in-race-with-trump/
As has been the case throughout the GOP primaries this year, there’s broad support in these preliminary Wisconsin results (seven in 10) for Trump’s proposal to ban non-U.S. Muslims from entering the country.
Four in 10 GOP voters in Wisconsin say they made up their minds less than a month ago, similar to previous primaries, vs. six in 10 who decided in the last month.
Great news for Trump on anti establishment and ideology of Republican voters.
https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/717472591292841988
https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/717473459534741506
Of course I still expect Cruz to win but hope Trump picks up two or more CDs.
For what it's worth ABC and MSNBC have dueling exit polls in #WIPrimary. MSNBC says they favor Hillary. ABC says bernie. no details
According to #WIPrimary exit polls, 54% of GOP voters think trade costs American jobs. Why then would they vote for Mr.Obamatrade, Ted Cruz?
One of those has got to be a typo, surely? Or have Populus just given up and started throwing octopuses at roulette wheels?
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/717472505217294337
I'm baffled how they show Late Deciders going for Trump but Cruz in the lead overall by 12.
The Exit Polls say Cruz 47 Trump 35, so I underestimated Cruz by 3 and overestimated Trump by 2.
So I was right.
And I gave you the opportunity to make some money by posting the Exit Poll numbers 2 hours early.
What baffled me was that Trump won late deciders.
So it's not a subsample error.
Maybe Trump trying to revive his campaign in the last few days had an effect.
I think Trump's campaign in the past few days had an effect, these are small places so have a couple of thousand attending a rally has a big network effect. Hoping it had a sufficient effect in those four CDs Trump targeted.
But we know that 2 Exit Polls had Trump leading Cruz by 38-36 and 36-34 with Late deciders.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/20160405_183849.jpg
Of course we know Trump has almost as big a gender gap as Hilary does so looks like 5-10% Cruz lead?
I needed an hour to find the tweet from Huffington Post with the numbers.
But I agree.
For Instance, the Early Deciders, the Women vote and this:
https://twitter.com/CBSNLive/status/717475772596953090
Point to Trump being in the high 30's, maybe low 40's and a small Cruz win not the blowout that the H.Post published.
It looks like Trump performed as well as Illinois, but Cruz unified the opposition to Trump behind him, so he surpassed Trump.
Personally I think this is shaping up as a bit of a disappointment for Bernie: he probably needed to win by 10%+, but I'm not sure he's going to get it.
Either way.
https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/717492423346098177
Trump winning a few CDs would shut the media up though.
Independents (1 in 4 voters)
Trump 43
Cruz 38
Kasich 17
Now again if the Exit Poll hadn't already been published by the H.Post, then I would have said closer than expected result.
Moderates
Trump 40
Kasich 29
Cruz 20
16 Florida
15 Illinois
12 Missouri
22 North Carolina
12 Ohio
Clinton wins !
4 Arizona <- Clinton wins - perhaps alot of hispanic ?
White states
1 Idaho
1 Utah
3 Alaska
2 Hawaii
4 Washington
6 Wisconsin
1 Wyoming
Sanders wins !
But !
Northeast seaboard incoming:
16 New York
10 Connecticut
51 DC
29 Maryland
11 Pennsylvania
6 Rhode Island
Clinton should win except maybe Rhode Island ;p
Then we have California. Which is whitish, but votes a bit like Arizona. Apparently.
https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/717502098850627585
Cruz 48
Trump 37
Kasich 12
Yep now I do believe the H.Post Exit Poll.
First time that Trump has lost that group in an Exit Poll.
So yet another indication that the Exit Poll from the H.Post is correct.
I have an Army buddy said he has been standing in line 30 minutes in GreenBay to vote when the line started chanting "Trump" #WIPrimary
Cruz must have completely crushed it in Milwaukee then !
Trump 8.8 / 9.0
Sanders 9.6 / 10.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419