politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A hundred days to go until the 2016 White House election on

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A hundred days to go until the 2016 White House election on November 8th

If a week is a long time in politics, then three months is enough for some pretty big shifts in popular opinion. However the party conventions have given an indication of what Clinton and Trump will be trying to do in to do in that time.

Read the full story here

Anorak

First.

I thought I had a handle on politics, and the triumph of common sense. Until Corbyn. Until Brexit. Until Trump. I have no clue what will happen in the presidential elections and have deployed both the barge pole and the sh1tty stick in an orgy of self-preservation.

TOPPING

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

tlg86

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

A question, Mr Topping. You're keen to split out the different types of leavers - a very fair observation. However, do you think the same could be said of the 2/3 of voters who voted to stay in the EEC in 1975?

TheWhiteRabbit

Thanks Mike! Pleasure as always to throw myself in front of the braying PB crowd.

TOPPING

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

A question, Mr Topping. You're keen to split out the different types of leavers - a very fair observation. However, do you think the same could be said of the 2/3 of voters who voted to stay in the EEC in 1975?

It was before my time so I am not in a position to say.

From what I can gather, and from what I believe is unarguable according to posters on here, the '75 vote was for a trade grouping. And then the EU grew wings and we have it as it is today.

Most of what it is today has been fully supported if not sponsored by UK govts over time. Some has been beyond the pale. So in answer to your question: probably not, but not much is the same today in any sphere as it was in 1975 so I have less sympathy for some of the criticism of what the EU has become.

YBarddCwsc

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

MarkSenior

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

TheWhiteRabbit

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

MaxPB

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

In the nicest possible way, you've become a sad and bitter person. I think you need to think about things a bit, get some perspective.

MontyHall

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

Is that a world record for a 'fact' to become an 'allegation'?

FrancisUrquhart

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

Not sure that counts as "reputable source" given a reputable newspaper printing a formal apology stating this isn't true.

SimonStClare

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

Daily Post: - An apology to Cllr Steven Woolfe

[…]

In fact Mr Woolfe did not claim or receive any money, whether expenses or allowances, to which he was not entitled. He received only the basic allowance to which he was entitled as a councillor and no inquiry was launched into him or his allowances or expenses.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

Mr Senior, now that you have been made aware of the true account, I will trust that you will refrain from repeating those specious allegations.

FrancisUrquhart

MontyHall said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

Is that a world record for a 'fact' to become an 'allegation'?

Have you seen the fantastic recent video of newt gingrich battling a reporter over "facts"?

GIN1138

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

Brexiteers won where it mattered though.

TOPPING

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

In the nicest possible way, you've become a sad and bitter person. I think you need to think about things a bit, get some perspective.

Nah, it's an internet chat room.

I'm neither sad nor bitter, but again as per Charles on the previous thread, when posts are about me rather than the issues it does get very boring.

Edit: although it should go without saying, surely discussion on post-Brexit scenarios is a legitimate discussion topic. Or easy-peasy just don't respond to my posts.

TOPPING

GIN1138 said:

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

Brexiteers won where it mattered though.

God yes. They achieved Brexit.

MarkSenior

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

I did not say he was an expenses cheat , there was certainly a roow about expenses claims whilst not attending any meetings . That does not necessarily equate to cheating .

YBarddCwsc

MarkSenior said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

I did not say he was an expenses cheat , there was certainly a roow about expenses claims whilst not attending any meetings . That does not necessarily equate to cheating .

As far as I can see, the origin of your "fact" seems to be a November 2007 posting on a BNP website.

It is up to you if you wish to repeat it as a "fact".

MarkSenior

YBarddCwsc said:

MarkSenior said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

I did not say he was an expenses cheat , there was certainly a roow about expenses claims whilst not attending any meetings . That does not necessarily equate to cheating .

As far as I can see, the origin of your "fact" seems to be a November 2007 posting on a BNP website.

It is up to you if you wish to repeat it as a "fact".

Nope I do not ever read any BNP website ( or the equivalent UKIP one ) . My account was based on the posting on the Vote2012 website

Tim_B

FrancisUrquhart said:

MontyHall said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

Is that a world record for a 'fact' to become an 'allegation'?

Have you seen the fantastic recent video of newt gingrich battling a reporter over "facts"?

Newt is just great - he can claim black is white and offer a convincing sounding explanation.

YBarddCwsc

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

MarkSenior said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

I did not say he was an expenses cheat , there was certainly a roow about expenses claims whilst not attending any meetings . That does not necessarily equate to cheating .

As far as I can see, the origin of your "fact" seems to be a November 2007 posting on a BNP website.

It is up to you if you wish to repeat it as a "fact".

Nope I do not ever read any BNP website ( or the equivalent UKIP one . My account was based on the posting on the Vote2012 website

I did not say you did read BNP websites (I do not myself, unless trying to fact-check Mark Senior).

I said that the primary source for your "fact" appears to be a posting on a BNP website.

Tim_B

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

A question, Mr Topping. You're keen to split out the different types of leavers - a very fair observation. However, do you think the same could be said of the 2/3 of voters who voted to stay in the EEC in 1975?

It was before my time so I am not in a position to say.

From what I can gather, and from what I believe is unarguable according to posters on here, the '75 vote was for a trade grouping. And then the EU grew wings and we have it as it is today.

Most of what it is today has been fully supported if not sponsored by UK govts over time. Some has been beyond the pale. So in answer to your question: probably not, but not much is the same today in any sphere as it was in 1975 so I have less sympathy for some of the criticism of what the EU has become.

In 1975 I voted to stay in the European Economic Community. It was sold as a free trade area, customs union - take your choice. There was no flag, anthem, parliament, surrender of sovereignty etc at that time, nor any sign of what was to come. Just a large free trade area.

The EU that exists today is vastly different than the 1975 face of Europe. It is not what the 1975 vote was about at all. If I had a vote in June I would have voted Leave and encouraged everyone I knew to do the same.

MarkSenior

YBarddCwsc said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

MarkSenior said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

I did not say he was an expenses cheat , there was certainly a roow about expenses claims whilst not attending any meetings . That does not necessarily equate to cheating .

As far as I can see, the origin of your "fact" seems to be a November 2007 posting on a BNP website.

It is up to you if you wish to repeat it as a "fact".

Nope I do not ever read any BNP website ( or the equivalent UKIP one . My account was based on the posting on the Vote2012 website

I did not say you did read BNP websites (I do not myself, unless trying to fact-check Mark Senior).

I said that the primary source for your "fact" appears to be a posting on a BNP website.

My primary source is someone has has met Mr Woolfe and all senior Welsh UKIP members and was for a time their only councillor in Wales .

YBarddCwsc

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

MarkSenior said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MarkSenior said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Mark Senior, FPT:

"A not that well known fact about Steven Woolfe is that in 2007 he was kicked off Conway CC for non attendance with a row about him claiming £ 20,000 plus in expenses whilst not attending any meetings . He had been elected in a by election in 2006 as a Conservative "

Source please.

My googling could only find this allegation on a highly disreputable website connected to the BNP.

The North Wales Daily Post seems to have had to print an apology, no doubt dictated by lawyers:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/apology-cllr-steven-woolfe-2817368

I suspect -- unless you have a reputable source -- the allegation is probably libellous and you shouldn't repeat it on someone else's blog.

The allegation is mentioned on the vote2012 website by a former member of UKIP .who is still a councillor in Wales . I am interested in which part is potentially libellous .

The idea he is an expenses cheat is clearly prima facie defamatory...

I did not say he was an expenses cheat , there was certainly a roow about expenses claims whilst not attending any meetings . That does not necessarily equate to cheating .

As far as I can see, the origin of your "fact" seems to be a November 2007 posting on a BNP website.

It is up to you if you wish to repeat it as a "fact".

Nope I do not ever read any BNP website ( or the equivalent UKIP one . My account was based on the posting on the Vote2012 website

I did not say you did read BNP websites (I do not myself, unless trying to fact-check Mark Senior).

I said that the primary source for your "fact" appears to be a posting on a BNP website.

My primary source is someone has has met Mr Woolfe and all senior Welsh UKIP members and was for a time their only councillor in Wales .

What has UKIP got to do with it ? Woolfe was then a Conservative councillor.

If you had information from a source in the Conservative group on Conwy CC in 2007, then that might carry some weight.

Chris

"Donald Trump would need to win all of them to gain to seal his route to the White House."

In normal circumstances I'd have said this was an inappropriate mixed metaphor. But at times Trump really does seem to be trying to seal his route to the White House irrevocably.

EPG

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

weejonnie

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

A question, Mr Topping. You're keen to split out the different types of leavers - a very fair observation. However, do you think the same could be said of the 2/3 of voters who voted to stay in the EEC in 1975?

It was before my time so I am not in a position to say.

From what I can gather, and from what I believe is unarguable according to posters on here, the '75 vote was for a trade grouping. And then the EU grew wings and we have it as it is today.

Most of what it is today has been fully supported if not sponsored by UK govts over time. Some has been beyond the pale. So in answer to your question: probably not, but not much is the same today in any sphere as it was in 1975 so I have less sympathy for some of the criticism of what the EU has become.

The 1975 vote was for 'ever closer union' as per the treaty of Rome - it is just that the Government sort of forgot to mention that in the campaign literature.

TheWhiteRabbit

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

Tim_B

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

I don't know much about Virginia, except that Tim Kaine's popularity numbers there are not good - he is under water.

In Georgia I have yet to see a single poll putting Clinton ahead of Trump (confession - I don't go crazy looking for polls at this stage in the election cycle. I could frankly care less until after Labor Day). Remember that there is not a single statewide elected Democrat here, and there has not been for several years.

However the demographics are starting to change, with an influx of hispanics.

EPG

Back in '88 Vermont and West Virginia were swing states. Vermont went Republican by a fairly close margin and West Virginia went Democratic by a larger margin (<6pct). Nowadays it would be shocking if those states were won by less than a 20-point margin - by the opposite party in each case!

Tim_B

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

The Democrats have pulled a huge amount of TV advertising from Colorado in the last week - evidence they feel comfortable there at present.

HurstLlama

weejonnie said:

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

TOPPING said:

Second, like Brexiteers who debate with me on PB.

A question, Mr Topping. You're keen to split out the different types of leavers - a very fair observation. However, do you think the same could be said of the 2/3 of voters who voted to stay in the EEC in 1975?

It was before my time so I am not in a position to say.

From what I can gather, and from what I believe is unarguable according to posters on here, the '75 vote was for a trade grouping. And then the EU grew wings and we have it as it is today.

Most of what it is today has been fully supported if not sponsored by UK govts over time. Some has been beyond the pale. So in answer to your question: probably not, but not much is the same today in any sphere as it was in 1975 so I have less sympathy for some of the criticism of what the EU has become.

The 1975 vote was for 'ever closer union' as per the treaty of Rome - it is just that the Government sort of forgot to mention that in the campaign literature.

I think it went beyond the sin of omission. When people like Peter Shore, Benn, Powell and so forth pointed out the threat to parliamentary sovereignty contained within the treaty, we were told that they were wrong and laws could not be and would not be imposed without parliament's consent. Turned out both sides were correct. As always it was a Conservative government that sold us down the river at Maastricht.

HYUFD

Trump's most likely route to victory in my view is to win Florida, NC and Ohio amongst the battleground states and add Pennsylvania through a big enough turnout amongst rustbelt, working class voters to overturn Philadelphia. If he wins those 4 states and holds the Romney states (beyond NC) he wins 273 to 265. Pennsylvania is pivotal to both Trump and Hillary

Tim_B

Watching the PGA - Englishman Andrew Johnston has just finished his round.

He is gaining quite a following here. His nickname is 'Beef'. Whenever he goes past on-course concessions they all cheer 'Beef!' and wave their hamburgers at him.

He has just picked up a US sponsor - Arbys!

nunu

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

RobD

Green and UKIP surge in the US?

Tim_B

nunu said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

Last time I looked at Florida (about 3 weeks ago) Trump was leading slightly.

TheWhiteRabbit

nunu said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

Florida Last four polls showed Trump +5, Trump +3, a tie and Clinton +7.

Virginia would mean taking the fight onto Democratic territory, but Trump may prefer that to sweeping up everything else.

FeersumEnjineeya

O/T I had an interesting chat with my 78-year-old German mother-in-law tonight. She's a long-term CDU voter and remains a big admirer of Angela Merkel. She says that many older Germans like her sympathise with the plight of Syrian refugees because many of them were themselves refugees after WWII. She was expelled from Pomerania by the Soviets as a girl, and later sought asylum in West Germany after absconding from the DDR in the 60s. While she recognises the difficulties in integrating such a large number of people from a foreign culture, she sees it as simply a Christian duty to offer asylum to those in need. Her biggest worry at the moment is events in Turkey; she compared Erdogan with Hitler more than once.

EPG

Tim_B said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

The Democrats have pulled a huge amount of TV advertising from Colorado in the last week - evidence they feel comfortable there at present.

Hillarious if they lost Colorado then. I'd love to know the mechanics of winning Pennsylvania given that it seems to be so important this time. It seems Republicans can win Pennsylvania handily, just not in recent presidential elections, even when the opposing candidate was John Kerry or Al Gore.

Sean_F

EPG said:

Back in '88 Vermont and West Virginia were swing states. Vermont went Republican by a fairly close margin and West Virginia went Democratic by a larger margin (<6pct). Nowadays it would be shocking if those states were won by less than a 20-point margin - by the opposite party in each case!</p>

Despite what some people think, the Swing States change over time. Back in 1992, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, as well as West Virginia, were swing States.

tlg86

Tim_B said:

Watching the PGA - Englishman Andrew Johnston has just finished his round.

He is gaining quite a following here. His nickname is 'Beef'. Whenever he goes past on-course concessions they all cheer 'Beef!' and wave their hamburgers at him.

He has just picked up a US sponsor - Arbys!

He could be an outside chance for a captain's pick in the Ryder Cup. Looking at the standings I would think that those not already qualified who would be in with a shout would be Westwood, Kaymer, Lowry, McDowell and Donaldson. But Johnston's in good form and would be a good character to have in the team.

FrancisUrquhart

I think a certain individual in chez jezza has just got way too excited over this week's episode of dragons den!

nunu

TheWhiteRabbit said:

nunu said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

Florida Last four polls , I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

Florida Last four polls showed Trump +5, Trump +3, a tie and Clinton +7.

Virginia would mean taking the fight onto Democratic territory, but Trump may prefer that to sweeping up everything else.

Also Virginia has lost many coal mining jobs.


Didn't the Coal fields vite 70% Leave.

Sean_F

nunu said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

nunu said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

EPG said:

I think Colorado/New Jersey are not necessarily Democratic and Missouri/Georgia are not necessarily Republican. I am sceptical of the purple road because a realignment of the party coalitions would necessarily involve repelling reliable Republican voters in states like Florida, though given the Latino business, that may already have happened. Furthermore, I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

Florida Last four polls , I do not think Virginia is a white working-class state in the same way as the others: it nowadays looks a little more like DC and a little less traditional white Southern/Military. In any case Virginia was a traditional Republican state long before the South became a Republican-leaning region for racial/cultural reasons. I think it is more swing than white working-class.

New Jersey and Colorado show a wide lead for Clinton, coupled with little indication that the GOP is prioritising them. Hence my conclusion that they would only go red on a strong national performance for Trump, whereas my assumption in the chart is a close race.

I thought demographic change meant Florida and Virginia are out of bounds for Trump also hasn't Clinton had a big lead in those states for a while ?

Florida Last four polls showed Trump +5, Trump +3, a tie and Clinton +7.

Virginia would mean taking the fight onto Democratic territory, but Trump may prefer that to sweeping up everything else.

Also Virginia has lost many coal mining jobs.


Didn't the Coal fields vite 70% Leave.

The expansion of Washington DC into Virginia makes life increasingly hard there for Republicans. I'd consider Iowa and Pennsylvania to be better targets for them.

Tim_B

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

Back in '88 Vermont and West Virginia were swing states. Vermont went Republican by a fairly close margin and West Virginia went Democratic by a larger margin (<6pct). Nowadays it would be shocking if those states were won by less than a 20-point margin - by the opposite party in each case!</p>

Despite what some people think, the Swing States change over time. Back in 1992, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, as well as West Virginia, were swing States.

It's the same for swingers in general. Those who were into the scene in 1992 probably no longer are.

I doubt these days that every time HurstLlama goes to a party with Mrs Llama he drops his car keys into a pot by the door, and goes home with an estate agent called Beryl

Sean_F

I see Morning Consult has Clinton ahead 43/40, compared to 40/44, straight after Trump's speech, but in line with its pre-Convention results.

Tim_B

Sean_F said:

I see Morning Consult has Clinton ahead 43/40, compared to 40/44, straight after Trump's speech, but in line with its pre-Convention results.

That's a post-convention bump. It will probably dissipate over the next week or so. They tend to do so. It takes about 2 weeks after the conventions to get a 'true' picture of what's going on.

surbiton

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

AndyJS

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

surbiton

HYUFD said:

Trump's most likely route to victory in my view is to win Florida, NC and Ohio amongst the battleground states and add Pennsylvania through a big enough turnout amongst rustbelt, working class voters to overturn Philadelphia. If he wins those 4 states and holds the Romney states (beyond NC) he wins 273 to 265. Pennsylvania is pivotal to both Trump and Hillary

That shows how tough it will be for Trump. Provided he keeps Arizona.

Tim_B

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

It just proves that the purpose of Mississippi is to make Alabama look good.

Mississippi - the most fun word to type!

TheWhiteRabbit

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

surbiton

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.

AndyJS

Tim_B said:

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

It just proves that the purpose of Mississippi is to make Alabama look good.

Mississippi - the most fun word to type!

With the EU referendum, the number of people with degrees was an even bigger indicator of how each area would vote than expected. The same thing could happen with Trump v Clinton.

TheWhiteRabbit

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

Trump's most likely route to victory in my view is to win Florida, NC and Ohio amongst the battleground states and add Pennsylvania through a big enough turnout amongst rustbelt, working class voters to overturn Philadelphia. If he wins those 4 states and holds the Romney states (beyond NC) he wins 273 to 265. Pennsylvania is pivotal to both Trump and Hillary

That shows how tough it will be for Trump. Provided he keeps Arizona.

It's a reminder that Trump needs to win his battles nationally. We have had a run of points victories in the last few contests, Trump could do with a knockout.

Tim_B

AndyJS said:

Tim_B said:

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

It just proves that the purpose of Mississippi is to make Alabama look good.

Mississippi - the most fun word to type!

With the EU referendum, the number of people with degrees was an even bigger indicator of how each area would vote than expected. The same thing could happen with Trump v Clinton.

It's pretty well established that Trump's main appeal is to - among others - WWC without college degrees

Sandpit

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

I see, more answers than questions!

Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!

TheWhiteRabbit

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

I see, more answers than questions!

Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!

I was going for the Malcolm in the Middle theme song.

The truth is, Woolfe's status is unclear. We assume the other three (Etheridge, Duffy and Arnott) are candidates. James may or may not be. Farage won't stay on, but he may return later.

EPG

New Hampshire was Bush's second-best state in '88, then Clinton won it in '92. EDIT: And Nixon's best state in '72 went to Carter in '76 - that was easier to explain as a local Mississippi effect in the swing region of the South.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

Jonathan

My take is that Trump is stronger than Romney and that Clinton is much weaker than Obama. There will be a swing to the GOP, the only questions are how will it be distributed and whether it will be enough.

nunu

AndyJS said:

Tim_B said:

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

It just proves that the purpose of Mississippi is to make Alabama look good.

Mississippi - the most fun word to type!

With the EU referendum, the number of people with degrees was an even bigger indicator of how each area would vote than expected. The same thing could happen with Trump v Clinton.

Looking at Bachelors degree Minnesota should be safe for Clinton and florida is a real toss up with a slightly below avreage number of graduates in Florida. Virginia is also safe for Clinton going on the number of graduates as is New Hampshire.

rural_voter

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

I see, more answers than questions!

Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!

Individual states might offer value, if some bookmakers would offer odds.

But I can't find any at the moment, although 25 UK bookies offer odds on the main race.

Surely, betting on states would be hardly any different from UK constituency betting?

Sandpit

A good long article on the subject of the Presidential race from the Telegraph, although God only knows what they've done to their website these days...

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/americas-mirror/index.html

John_M

Evening all.

I know enough about the US to know that you don't wear white after Labor day and don't look at polls before .

Speedy

surbiton said:

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.

Although I agree about the factor of education, there are strong regional differences.

For instance Hillary is massively behind in Kansas and Nebraska, and at a tie in N.H. even though they are above 26%.

Likewise Trump is behind in Michigan, and at a tie in Nevada, Iowa, Florida and Ohio even though they are bellow 26%.

FrancisUrquhart

I think the thick little Englander take on brexit is as flawed as thick redneck Americans for trump. They certainly vote that way but there is more going on than that.

Speedy

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

Philip_Thompson

Scott_P said:

Peers to block Brexit...

File under nonsense claims that will never come to pass ...

Sandpit

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

I see, more answers than questions!

Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!

Individual states might offer value, if some bookmakers would offer odds.

But I can't find any at the moment, although 25 UK bookies offer odds on the main race.

Surely, betting on states would be hardly any different from UK constituency betting?

I'm thinking the same as you on the States betting, but the big variable is the polling - I'm seeing lots of small sample sizes and variations such as the four Florida polls showing a huge spread.

There's also the same general polling problems as we've seen in the UK with regard to polling demographics (who can the pollsters find to speak to?) and voting demographics (evidence that Trump especially is bringing out non-voters for example) which messed up the UK polls before the last election and for the referendum.

I think I'll watch, listen, read and wait a few weeks longer before betting more than beer money. The value for the overall win has to be still with Trump at this point though.

oxfordsimon

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

A good constitutional crisis - what fun.

And will hasten the demise of the Lords if they try to push things too far.

AndyJS

Here are the demographic graphs for the EU referendum:

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/files/2016/06/brexit-big-five.png

Sandpit

oxfordsimon said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

A good constitutional crisis - what fun.

And will hasten the demise of the Lords if they try to push things too far.

There won't be much the Lords can do to actually block us leaving the EU. The triggering of Art. 50 is for the PM and after that the options are only about the type of Brexit we get, with the default being no deal and exit to WTO terms - which I guess isn't what the rebel Lords are after.

That said, any funny business they do try on will be met with either the Parliament Act or the creation of a few dozen new Peers by the government. The people have made their decision on this one already, the govt have to implement the will of the people if they don't want turfing out at the next election.

Speedy

oxfordsimon said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

A good constitutional crisis - what fun.

And will hasten the demise of the Lords if they try to push things too far.

No really, it's not in the power of the Lords to prevent the PM from stating in the Council of Ministers that Britain intends to leave the EU.

Only the PM has that power, since only the PM is represented in the Council, not Parliament.

It's funny that the EU decision making was designed to bypass parliaments.

nunu

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

FrancisUrquhart

I can see a load of unelected peers attempting to block a democratic decision going down real well. Which bit of people pissed off at unelected officials affecting our lives did they not understand.

All those against us leaving would be far better now trying to lobby / affect the deal the UK tries to form with the EU, than lots of silly stunts to attempt to deny the democratic decision.

Sandpit

Woolfe's team have tipped off Guido:
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/759808865776971776

Speedy

Sandpit said:

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

I see, more answers than questions!

Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!

Individual states might offer value, if some bookmakers would offer odds.

But I can't find any at the moment, although 25 UK bookies offer odds on the main race.

Surely, betting on states would be hardly any different from UK constituency betting?

I'm thinking the same as you on the States betting, but the big variable is the polling - I'm seeing lots of small sample sizes and variations such as the four Florida polls showing a huge spread.

There's also the same general polling problems as we've seen in the UK with regard to polling demographics (who can the pollsters find to speak to?) and voting demographics (evidence that Trump especially is bringing out non-voters for example) which messed up the UK polls before the last election and for the referendum.

I think I'll watch, listen, read and wait a few weeks longer before betting more than beer money. The value for the overall win has to be still with Trump at this point though.

I'm not sure.

Back in April I did an analysis and I found that Trump would be even with Electoral Votes even if he loses the popular vote by around 4%, due to him losing piles of votes in safe states even as he gains votes in the rest.

But the impact of the conventions state wise is unknown yet, so far there has been only a single state poll, from Arizona giving Trump an 8 point lead which is his highest in any poll for 8 months.

I have the suspicion that the conventions will limit any switchers, and hit 3rd parties hard.

oxfordsimon

Sandpit said:

Woolfe's team have tipped off Guido:
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/759808865776971776

Paying on time is not the same as submitting paperwork on time - as they well know.

John_M

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can see a load of unelected peers attempting to block a democratic decision going down real well. Which bit of people pissed off at unelected officials affecting our lives did they not understand.

All those against us leaving would be far better now trying to lobby / affect the deal the UK tries to form with the EU, than lots of silly stunts to attempt to deny the democratic decision.

It's just fin de siècle thrashing around. It will take some people time to adapt - it is only just over five weeks since EuRef after all.

Speedy

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

Speedy

oxfordsimon said:

Sandpit said:

Woolfe's team have tipped off Guido:
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/759808865776971776

Paying on time is not the same as submitting paperwork on time - as they well know.

It's going to go to court.

Woolfie will have to prove that email is an instantaneous way of submitting paperwork and the UKIP NEC is lying that it received the email almost an hour later after it was sent.

RobD

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

williamglenn

Sandpit said:

Woolfe's team have tipped off Guido:

Never trust anyone who doesn't capitalise their name online.

RobD

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

Woolfe's team have tipped off Guido:

Never trust anyone who doesn't capitalise their name online.

I'm keeping an eye on you.....

Speedy

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

Sandpit

oxfordsimon said:

Sandpit said:

Woolfe's team have tipped off Guido:
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/759808865776971776

Paying on time is not the same as submitting paperwork on time - as they well know.

Yes, there's an unsaid assumption that the process is comparable to an online transaction with a retailer, that if the payment's gone through then all the forms have been filled in correctly and the order has been placed.

If the process is different, for example that the payment receipt is one of a number of documents that need to be uploaded or emailed to UKIP before the deadline, then there's a chance that he might have been late with the nomination.

His spinners are pushing the first option, adding that there are people high up who might have been responsible for the 'technical issue'. From the IT side I'd probably be able to spot what he was doing on a web server and stop the form submitting, more difficult to slow email down though, without leaving a trail. If you've got all your expected nominations except for Woolfe's, then it's very easy to shut things down for a few minutes of course

John_M

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.

RobD

John_M said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.

Yes, I'd say there IS provision in the Lisbon treaty for national parliaments to have to consent.

BigRich

surbiton said:

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.

Overall yes - but - one notable exception to that is Utah, another reason to think it might go to Libertarian Gary Johnson!

John_M

RobD said:

John_M said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.

Yes, I'd say there IS provision in the Lisbon treaty for national parliaments to have to consent.

Honestly, after all the sturm und drang of the last few weeks, I'm beyond caring . I cast my vote. Over to you oh dearest elected representatives.

Mortimer

Sandpit said:

oxfordsimon said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

A good constitutional crisis - what fun.

And will hasten the demise of the Lords if they try to push things too far.

There won't be much the Lords can do to actually block us leaving the EU. The triggering of Art. 50 is for the PM and after that the options are only about the type of Brexit we get, with the default being no deal and exit to WTO terms - which I guess isn't what the rebel Lords are after.

That said, any funny business they do try on will be met with either the Parliament Act or the creation of a few dozen new Peers by the government. The people have made their decision on this one already, the govt have to implement the will of the people if they don't want turfing out at the next election.

Quite. The Lords never do well out of constitutional crises.

ThreeQuidder

John_M said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.

Yes, but it's the EU that judges. Once May notifies and the EU accepts the notification it's a done deal.

RobD

ThreeQuidder said:

John_M said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.

Yes, but it's the EU that judges. Once May notifies and the EU accepts the notification it's a done deal.

Would it recognise an illegal declaration? Take a hypothetical country where the PM/President could only invoke article 50 after a vote in their parliament, the EU wouldn't accept a declaration until it was satisfied that the constitutional requirements had been satisfied. As John says, what our constitutional requirements is another matter, and will be settled in the courts.

HYUFD

Speedy said:

Sandpit said:

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

surbiton said:

Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

I see, more answers than questions!

Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!

Individual states might offer value, if some bookmakers would offer odds.

But I can't find any at the moment, although 25 UK bookies offer odds on the main race.

Surely, betting on states would be hardly any different from UK constituency betting?

I'm thinking the same as you on the States betting, but the big variable is the polling - I'm seeing lots of small sample sizes and variations such as the four Florida polls showing a huge spread.

There's also the same general polling problems as we've seen in the UK with regard to polling demographics (who can the pollsters find to speak to?) and voting demographics (evidence that Trump especially is bringing out non-voters for example) which messed up the UK polls before the last election and for the referendum.

I think I'll watch, listen, read and wait a few weeks longer before betting more than beer money. The value for the overall win has to be still with Trump at this point though.

I'm not sure.

Back in April I did an analysis and I found that Trump would be even with Electoral Votes even if he loses the popular vote by around 4%, due to him losing piles of votes in safe states even as he gains votes in the rest.

But the impact of the conventions state wise is unknown yet, so far there has been only a single state poll, from Arizona giving Trump an 8 point lead which is his highest in any poll for 8 months.

I have the suspicion that the conventions will limit any switchers, and hit 3rd parties hard.

PPP has Clinton up 5 today, Morning Consult has her up 3 and CBS has her up 2 in battleground states. Overall Clinton leads by 1.1% in the RCP poll average and RCP have been right in the last 3 presidential elections. As of today Clinton will win but it will be the closest presidential election since 2000. In a 4 way race it is tied but Johnson is on 7%, with Stein only on 2.8% Johnson could therefore cost Trump the presidency
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

williamglenn

ThreeQuidder said:

John_M said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Speedy said:

nunu said:

Speedy said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/timespictures/status/759861893754335234

Peers to block Brexit...

They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.

If they did block it would surely be the end of them.

They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.

I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...

There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.

It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.

"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"

The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.

Yes, but it's the EU that judges. Once May notifies and the EU accepts the notification it's a done deal.

If it's done unconstitutionally, which can only be judged by the member state, then the EU won't be able to accept it without violating the treaty.

Sandpit

BigRich said:

surbiton said:

AndyJS said:

This may be useful as far as the US election is concerned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.

Overall yes - but - one notable exception to that is Utah, another reason to think it might go to Libertarian Gary Johnson!

It would be good to see Johnson win a State, would upset the Establishment a little more than they are already by having Trump on the ballot. Johnson really needs to get a place in the debates if he's to break through though.

HYUFD

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

Trump's most likely route to victory in my view is to win Florida, NC and Ohio amongst the battleground states and add Pennsylvania through a big enough turnout amongst rustbelt, working class voters to overturn Philadelphia. If he wins those 4 states and holds the Romney states (beyond NC) he wins 273 to 265. Pennsylvania is pivotal to both Trump and Hillary

That shows how tough it will be for Trump. Provided he keeps Arizona.

Indeed, Pennsylvania is a tough ask for Trump but not impossible he wins it

Moses_

Anyone with insomnia. This is for you..... Not sure if it is an article or a book it's so long?

https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.u6iw1lasr