If you'd spend any time on here a week or two back you'd have been forgiven for thinking he'd already won!!
His campaign has been working at level 10 rhetoric for so long that now he has to jump it up to 11, no one can really notice the difference. Can you crank up his particular brand of self-aggrandising bullshit any further without it beginning to look like a piece of performance art?
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
That CNN lead for Hillary would be the biggest Democratic presidential win since 1964, though I think it is still closer than that
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Do Al Qaeda and ISIS compete for resources and recruits or do they have their own geographic spheres of influence? I would be worried about the risk of "competitive spectaculars" as part of a recruiting drive
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
Surely, Woolfe should withdraw from the contest shouldn't he? Or don't standards in Public Life count for anything at all these days?
As a lawyer, he really shouldn't need prompting to take the correct course of action here. I just have a sneaking suspicion that the delay in submitting his nomination papers may not have been 100% accidental.
George W Bush had a drink driving conviction and it did not stop him winning 2 presidential elections, even if it cost him a little with evangelical voters in the 1st (and UKIP does not need to win the religious right to the same extent as the GOP)
It's the breach of electoral law that matters, not the drink driving conviction
Not in electoral terms, no working class voter is going to be put off because he did not complete the form for the PCC elections 100% correctly when virtually none of them vote in those elections anyway
I focus more on character and quality of our political leadership than who is going to win one meaningless election or other.
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Do Al Qaeda and ISIS compete for resources and recruits or do they have their own geographic spheres of influence? I would be worried about the risk of "competitive spectaculars" as part of a recruiting drive
They did have crossovers but I think thats less prevalent now.
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
If in November Hillary beats Trump by 52-43 then she is probably going to beat Obama's 08 ECV score. There is simply not much more juice in the lemon in reliably Dem states to pop a margin like that and not be bringing states into play.
There is plenty of margin in states like California that are 1/9th of the voters for Hillary to squeeze, and the cities in the N.E. with are another 1/9th.
The pattern in state polls so far after the convention is Hillary up big in blue states, Trump stable in red states.
But since Trump needs to win blue states, that's a losing hand.
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
It does not fatally undermine him at all other than for a few middle class liberals who would never vote UKIP in a million years anyway.
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
That CNN lead for Hillary would be the biggest Democratic presidential win since 1964, though I think it is still closer than that
I also think it's closer than that, my tracking poll has it 44-41 for Hillary. But the Pennsylvania poll although not catastrophic for Trump (losing by 3), he's still losing.
Let's wait a week and see, but if by August 15th or so Trump hasn't closed the gap I will re-issue my "Trump is dead" forecast.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
I guess you could say he's a conviction politician
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
It does not fatally undermine him at all other than for a few middle class liberals who would never vote UKIP in a million years anyway.
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
If in November Hillary beats Trump by 52-43 then she is probably going to beat Obama's 08 ECV score. There is simply not much more juice in the lemon in reliably Dem states to pop a margin like that and not be bringing states into play.
There is plenty of margin in states like California that are 1/9th of the voters for Hillary to squeeze, and the cities in the N.E. with are another 1/9th.
The pattern in state polls so far after the convention is Hillary up big in blue states, Trump stable in red states.
But since Trump needs to win blue states, that's a losing hand.
Missouri would certainly be in play for Hillary, she led there at the weekend, maybe Arizona too and Georgia on a very good night with that big a lead, Obama did not win one of those states but Bill won all 3 at least once
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
He should have known better but I can't see it seriously hindering him if allowed to stand. Will Straw's misdemeanours have done him little harm! For whatever reason some indiscretions are held in lesser regard than others by the public. Woolfe will either fall at the first hurdle or go on to be a successful party leader in my eyes, I don't see this story gaining too much traction now it is out in the open.
Surely, Woolfe should withdraw from the contest shouldn't he? Or don't standards in Public Life count for anything at all these days?
As a lawyer, he really shouldn't need prompting to take the correct course of action here. I just have a sneaking suspicion that the delay in submitting his nomination papers may not have been 100% accidental.
George W Bush had a drink driving conviction and it did not stop him winning 2 presidential elections, even if it cost him a little with evangelical voters in the 1st (and UKIP does not need to win the religious right to the same extent as the GOP)
It's the breach of electoral law that matters, not the drink driving conviction
Not in electoral terms, no working class voter is going to be put off because he did not complete the form for the PCC elections 100% correctly when virtually none of them vote in those elections anyway
I focus more on character and quality of our political leadership than who is going to win one meaningless election or other.
Very commendable of you but you are the polar opposite of the typical working class, northern voter Woolfe would be designed to appeal to (other than the fact you also voted Leave)
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Do Al Qaeda and ISIS compete for resources and recruits or do they have their own geographic spheres of influence? I would be worried about the risk of "competitive spectaculars" as part of a recruiting drive
They did have crossovers but I think thats less prevalent now.
What I want to know was what was a mid 30s lawyer (I believe with a hedge fund?) doing riding around on a scooter, like a drunken deliveroo delivery person?
I've seen worse.
Speeding around in a sports car I can definitely see, but a scooter?
You mean how is it possible to be speeding with a scooter ?
Now that's a Top Gear challenge.
She looks and sound too much like a tory woman tbh. She won't win nothern Labour seats imho.
I think that we need to consider the selectorate for this election, not the wider voters.
Bill Etheridge looks value to me. The Kipper Korbyn.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
If in November Hillary beats Trump by 52-43 then she is probably going to beat Obama's 08 ECV score. There is simply not much more juice in the lemon in reliably Dem states to pop a margin like that and not be bringing states into play.
There is plenty of margin in states like California that are 1/9th of the voters for Hillary to squeeze, and the cities in the N.E. with are another 1/9th.
The pattern in state polls so far after the convention is Hillary up big in blue states, Trump stable in red states.
But since Trump needs to win blue states, that's a losing hand.
Missouri would certainly be in play for Hillary, she led there at the weekend, maybe Arizona too and Georgia on a very good night with that big a lead, Obama did not win one of those states but Bill won all 3 at least once
Nope, the polling picture in Missouri is +10 for Trump, in Arizona +8, and Georgia +4 right now.
That's why Pennsylvania moving +3 to Hillary means that Hillary's bounce is coming from Obama territory, not uniformly from the whole country.
The DNC had a rally around the flag effect among democrats but didn't move the needle with republicans, but Hillary only needs to rally around democrats to win and she has done that so far.
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
He should have known better but I can't see it seriously hindering him if allowed to stand. Will Straw's misdemeanours have done him little harm! For whatever reason some indiscretions are held in lesser regard than others by the public. Woolfe will either fall at the first hurdle or go on to be a successful party leader in my eyes, I don't see this story gaining too much traction now it is out in the open.
It's a Huhne story, not a Straw story, and it will finish him.
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Yokel. Do you give Gary Johnson any chance? I'm on at 1000 with Betfair!
I think your 1000/1 is a good position.
Deadlines to get on the state ballots are now coming quick and fast, for 10 states the deadline is today, and another 4 tomorrow, which will mean that in 28 states it is now to late for anybody else could get on the ballot, which should kill any hope of a 'conservative' alternative, and on Wednesday he will be on CNN, in a long 'Town hall' style program, that will boost his program, he is at 985,000 licks on Facebook, so should pass the 1 million, tomorrow, that will become a good talking point for him.
There could be a pole with him at 15% or more by this time next week, the pole may be an outlier, but will again get positive media coverage.
Will he get in the debates? I don't know but it is looking a lot more likely that a few mouths ago.
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
He should have known better but I can't see it seriously hindering him if allowed to stand. Will Straw's misdemeanours have done him little harm! For whatever reason some indiscretions are held in lesser regard than others by the public. Woolfe will either fall at the first hurdle or go on to be a successful party leader in my eyes, I don't see this story gaining too much traction now it is out in the open.
It's a Huhne story, not a Straw story, and it will finish him.
It is not a Huhne story, he has already had his conviction for the drink driving Huhne tried to avoid his.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
He should have known better but I can't see it seriously hindering him if allowed to stand. Will Straw's misdemeanours have done him little harm! For whatever reason some indiscretions are held in lesser regard than others by the public. Woolfe will either fall at the first hurdle or go on to be a successful party leader in my eyes, I don't see this story gaining too much traction now it is out in the open.
It's a Huhne story, not a Straw story, and it will finish him.
No chance. But if he had become Police Comminisioner then it would be a Huhne story, given he didn't win the position it's not much of a big deal.
The conviction is now out in the open and we may get the chance to see how UKIP members and then the wider electorate judge it.
Worth mentioning Woolfe was drink driving on a scooter so not quite as bad as a car, however I agree not ideal for a party leader and clearly linked to his late application . If he is allowed to run I don't think the electorate will be too bothered by his offence outside those who already dislike UKIP. Failing him Diane James is a respectable candidate and a good shout to detoxify the party, but at the same time is less of a threat to Labour. Lisa Duffy is worst case scenario of those in the frame.
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
It is not what the conviction was that matters, it was the fact that he then broke electoral law when standing for PCC. That is what fatally undermines him.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
It does not fatally undermine him at all other than for a few middle class liberals who would never vote UKIP in a million years anyway.
And with the NEC
According to Guido he still has the nominations to go forward
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
That CNN lead for Hillary would be the biggest Democratic presidential win since 1964, though I think it is still closer than that
I also think it's closer than that, my tracking poll has it 44-41 for Hillary. But the Pennsylvania poll although not catastrophic for Trump (losing by 3), he's still losing.
Let's wait a week and see, but if by August 15th or so Trump hasn't closed the gap I will re-issue my "Trump is dead" forecast.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
That's a very big bounce though. Trump looks dead at the moment.
But the pattern in the states so far is that Hillary has gone way up in states that voted for Obama in 2012, while Trump is stable in states that voted for Romney, compared with the pre-convention picture.
But Trump still looks dead. 347 for Hillary 191 for Trump in E.V looks like the picture post-conventions.
If in November Hillary beats Trump by 52-43 then she is probably going to beat Obama's 08 ECV score. There is simply not much more juice in the lemon in reliably Dem states to pop a margin like that and not be bringing states into play.
There is plenty of margin in states like California that are 1/9th of the voters for Hillary to squeeze, and the cities in the N.E. with are another 1/9th.
The pattern in state polls so far after the convention is Hillary up big in blue states, Trump stable in red states.
But since Trump needs to win blue states, that's a losing hand.
Missouri would certainly be in play for Hillary, she led there at the weekend, maybe Arizona too and Georgia on a very good night with that big a lead, Obama did not win one of those states but Bill won all 3 at least once
Nope, the polling picture in Missouri is +10 for Trump, in Arizona +8, and Georgia +4 right now.
That's why Pennsylvania moving +3 to Hillary means that Hillary's bounce is coming from Obama territory, not uniformly from the whole country.
The DNC had a rally around the flag effect among democrats but didn't move the needle with republicans, but Hillary only needs to rally around democrats to win and she has done that so far.
Not in the latest polls, Missouri had a Hillary lead a few days ago and Georgia is now tied
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such
What else could the point of the law be - to stop people with clean records making up offences they had not committed, simply to ensure they wouldn't be subjected to the terrible fate of having to be a police and crime commissioner, so they can do something more useful and interesting for the next 4 years?
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
I see that I will indeed have to put a stop to these cat fights, as suggested by Mr Llama of this parish on the previous thread.
Wasn't Diane James the lady who made a bit of a fruitloop of herself during the Eastleigh by-election?
I have an idea for a thread about how a left of centre party might approach the question of what it's for. If OGH is kind enough to publish it, it seems only kind to share it with Labour. God knows they could do with the help. From Attlee to Corbyn, from Bevan to Smith: if that's not the very essence of going backwards, I don't know what is.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Have you been drinking? Seriously if you don't think think that's not a false statement then I'm surprised you're allowed out of the house unsupervised.
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Yokel. Do you give Gary Johnson any chance? I'm on at 1000 with Betfair!
I think your 1000/1 is a good position.
Deadlines to get on the state ballots are now coming quick and fast, for 10 states the deadline is today, and another 4 tomorrow, which will mean that in 28 states it is now to late for anybody else could get on the ballot, which should kill any hope of a 'conservative' alternative, and on Wednesday he will be on CNN, in a long 'Town hall' style program, that will boost his program, he is at 985,000 licks on Facebook, so should pass the 1 million, tomorrow, that will become a good talking point for him.
There could be a pole with him at 15% or more by this time next week, the pole may be an outlier, but will again get positive media coverage.
Will he get in the debates? I don't know but it is looking a lot more likely that a few mouths ago.
BigRich. It's just you and I keeping the faith with Johnson at the moment. If we are eventually proved right then your PB reputation will be Big - and I will be Rich!
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such
What else could the point of the law be - to stop people with clean records making up offences they had not committed, simply to ensure they wouldn't be subjected to the terrible fate of having to be a police and crime commissioner, so they can do something more useful and interesting for the next 4 years?
I see that I will indeed have to put a stop to these cat fights, as suggested by Mr Llama of this parish on the previous thread.
Wasn't Diane James the lady who made a bit of a fruitloop of herself during the Eastleigh by-election?
I have an idea for a thread about how a left of centre party might approach the question of what it's for. If OGH is kind enough to publish it, it seems only kind to share it with Labour. God knows they could do with the help. From Attlee to Corbyn, from Bevan to Smith: if that's not the very essence of going backwards, I don't know what is.
No, it was the Tory candidate in the Eastleigh by-election that did a passing resemblance of a fruit loop
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Have you been drinking? Seriously if you don't think think that's not a false statement then I'm surprised you're allowed out of the house unsupervised.
A false statement is a clear statement of something that is incorrect not an omission
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
If you had a conviction of any relevant nature and did not state it when required to do so, then you broke the law. Simple as that.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
There is surely a box on the form that says tick if you have been convicted of a crime with a maximum penalty of imprisonment. To not tick that box is a false statement.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
TSE, keep this between us.... I have a cunning plan to avoid my income taxes for the year.....
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
TSE, keep this between us.... I have a cunning plan to avoid my income taxes for the year.....
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No.
So? It is still an imprisonable offence. The form does not ask if you were imprisoned at any time.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
TSE, keep this between us.... I have a cunning plan to avoid my income taxes for the year.....
I like your thinking.
Perfectly legal, otherwise I would have said "evade my income taxes"... *innocent face*
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
Imprisoned for dangerous driving, not speeding. Speeding is maximum punishment of a fine-
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
He made a false statement, he knows and you know it.
It is an imprisonable offence, which is what he was asked.
And it wasn't for speeding, it was for drink driving.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
Someone has been at the awkward juice tonight.
Well that is the fact. Someone who went at 33mph in a 30mph zone and was convicted and got some penalty points has committed the same offence as someone who drove at 100mph in the same zone and was imprisoned for it, just to a different degree
Let us hope that Steven Woolfe didn't forget to tell his insurance company that he has a conviction for drink driving, then he really would be screwed, those firms do go to the police.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
Someone has been at the awkward juice tonight.
Well that is the fact. Some who went at 33mph in a 30mph zone and was convicted and got some penalty points has committed the same offence as someone who drove at 100mph in the same zone and was imprisoned for it, just to a different degree
You can't be imprisoned for the crime of speeding, so they would have technically committed a different offence (namely dangerous driving).
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No.
So? It is still an imprisonable offence. The form does not ask if you were imprisoned at any time.
If he was only found a small way over the limit that is a vast difference from if he was found incapacitated to such a degree he could barely function, in which case the latter may well be an imprisonable offence.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
Someone has been at the awkward juice tonight.
Well that is the fact. Some who went at 33mph in a 30mph zone and was convicted and got some penalty points has committed the same offence as someone who drove at 100mph in the same zone and was imprisoned for it, just to a different degree
Speeding at 100 mph in a 30mph a zone isn't a speeding offence, it's dangerous driving offence.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No. You can be imprisoned for speeding but the vast majority are not.
Someone has been at the awkward juice tonight.
Well that is the fact. Some who went at 33mph in a 30mph zone and was convicted and got some penalty points has committed the same offence as someone who drove at 100mph in the same zone and was imprisoned for it, just to a different degree
But for the purposes of the declaration on the form, it is a strict liability matter.
Have you been convicted of any offence for which the maximum sentence involves prison time? Yes or No.
Answering no when you have been convicted of being drunk in charge of a vehicle is a lie and thus he broke the law - and has admitted that.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
The form explicitly asks if you have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
Was he imprisoned for it? No.
So? It is still an imprisonable offence. The form does not ask if you were imprisoned at any time.
If he was only found a small way over the limit that is a vast difference from if he was found incapacitated to such a degree he could barely function, in which case the latter may well be an imprisonable offence.
But the form didn't ask about the specifics of the crime, it just asks "have you been convicted of a crime which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment". He had been, and he failed to tick it.
Of course a few months ago the argument was whether Hillary Clinton would be imprisoned or not, let alone a candidate for the presidency, she has now had a rap on the knuckles, won the nomination of her party and in the latest polls tonight is on course for the White House. Unless Wolfe is imprisoned because of this I doubt it makes much difference, as Guido's poll suggests most Kippers back his candidacy
Of course a few months ago the argument was whether Hillary Clinton would be imprisoned or not, let alone a candidate for the presidency, she has now had a rap on the knuckles, won the nomination of her party and in the latest polls tonight is on course for the White House. Unless Wolfe is imprisoned because of this I doubt it makes much difference, as Guido's poll suggests most Kippers back his candidacy
The difference being Clinton has never been found guilty of a crime...
Of course a few months ago the argument was whether Hillary Clinton would be imprisoned or not, let alone a candidate for the presidency, she has now had a rap on the knuckles, won the nomination of her party and in the latest polls tonight is on course for the White House. Unless Wolfe is imprisoned because of this I doubt it makes much difference, as Guido's poll suggests most Kippers back his candidacy
The difference being Clinton has never been found guilty of a crime...
Of course a few months ago the argument was whether Hillary Clinton would be imprisoned or not, let alone a candidate for the presidency, she has now had a rap on the knuckles, won the nomination of her party and in the latest polls tonight is on course for the White House. Unless Wolfe is imprisoned because of this I doubt it makes much difference, as Guido's poll suggests most Kippers back his candidacy
The difference being Clinton has never been found guilty of a crime...
She was guilty of a crime which at its maximum level could have seen her imprisoned, storing records on her private server not her public server and deleting Federal Records before their retention time. Just the FBI did not think there was much chance of a prosecution, mainly for political reasons. What she did was far more serious than anything Wolfe has done
I see that I will indeed have to put a stop to these cat fights, as suggested by Mr Llama of this parish on the previous thread.
Wasn't Diane James the lady who made a bit of a fruitloop of herself during the Eastleigh by-election?
I have an idea for a thread about how a left of centre party might approach the question of what it's for. If OGH is kind enough to publish it, it seems only kind to share it with Labour. God knows they could do with the help. From Attlee to Corbyn, from Bevan to Smith: if that's not the very essence of going backwards, I don't know what is.
No, it was the Tory candidate in the Eastleigh by-election that did a passing resemblance of a fruit loop
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Yokel. Do you give Gary Johnson any chance? I'm on at 1000 with Betfair!
I think your 1000/1 is a good position.
Deadlines to get on the state ballots are now coming quick and fast, for 10 states the deadline is today, and another 4 tomorrow, which will mean that in 28 states it is now to late for anybody else could get on the ballot, which should kill any hope of a 'conservative' alternative, and on Wednesday he will be on CNN, in a long 'Town hall' style program, that will boost his program, he is at 985,000 licks on Facebook, so should pass the 1 million, tomorrow, that will become a good talking point for him.
There could be a pole with him at 15% or more by this time next week, the pole may be an outlier, but will again get positive media coverage.
Will he get in the debates? I don't know but it is looking a lot more likely that a few mouths ago.
BigRich. It's just you and I keeping the faith with Johnson at the moment. If we are eventually proved right then your PB reputation will be Big - and I will be Rich!
StJohn, we may be small in number, but we will get huge kudos on PB at least if he does it!, I will be £90,000 better off, and I think Pogo, stand to make £2.2 million!
But I admit, the main reason I cheer him on, is I like what he says and hope it will gain traction in the US and by spill over in the rest of the would including the UK. I want it to become possible, acceptable, even cool, to be both socially liberal and economically sane at the same time.
Of course a few months ago the argument was whether Hillary Clinton would be imprisoned or not, let alone a candidate for the presidency, she has now had a rap on the knuckles, won the nomination of her party and in the latest polls tonight is on course for the White House. Unless Wolfe is imprisoned because of this I doubt it makes much difference, as Guido's poll suggests most Kippers back his candidacy
The difference being Clinton has never been found guilty of a crime...
She was guilty of a crime which at its maximum level could have seen her imprisoned, storing records on her private server not her public server and deleting Federal Records before their retention time. Just the FBI did not think there was much chance of a prosecution, mainly for political reasons. What she did was far more serious than anything Wolfe has done
She was found guilty by the court of public opinion? Okay....
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
Although you could argue that the false declaration is the wolf at the door for his campaign...
Of course a few months ago the argument was whether Hillary Clinton would be imprisoned or not, let alone a candidate for the presidency, she has now had a rap on the knuckles, won the nomination of her party and in the latest polls tonight is on course for the White House. Unless Wolfe is imprisoned because of this I doubt it makes much difference, as Guido's poll suggests most Kippers back his candidacy
The difference being Clinton has never been found guilty of a crime...
She was guilty of a crime which at its maximum level could have seen her imprisoned, storing records on her private server not her public server and deleting Federal Records before their retention time. Just the FBI did not think there was much chance of a prosecution, mainly for political reasons. What she did was far more serious than anything Wolfe has done
She was found guilty by the court of public opinion? Okay....
The court of public opinion certainly judged Hillary guilty, at least until the conventions, I doubt the working class voters and UKIP members Woolfe needs to target will be that bothered by these revelations and unless Wolfe is imprisoned that is all that matters
I've said it yesterday but either Trump or Clinton has a soft layer to their support that I don't think anyone has yet homed in on. These are people who when polled say Trump or Clinton but won't bother their arse on polling day.
Question is, which one is it.
I'm curious regarding the position of Mike Pence. I'm not sure why but Republicans who would like a GOP president but can't have Trump surely will have words in Pence's ear with the aim of bending him. This a bitter rift in the GOP and I get the feeling that the GOP's own can do more damage to their own candidate than Clinton.
On an unrelated note. August is the major holiday month in Europe. Our wee pals in IS know this and it wouldn't surprise if they tried to make something major of it. This month has great potential. As for Al Qaeda, very quiet on the terrorising the West front for some time, can't last can it?
Yokel. Do you give Gary Johnson any chance? I'm on at 1000 with Betfair!
I think your 1000/1 is a good position.
Deadlines to get on the state ballots are now coming quick and fast, for 10 states the deadline is today, and another 4 tomorrow, which will mean that in 28 states it is now to late for anybody else could get on the ballot, which should kill any hope of a 'conservative' alternative, and on Wednesday he will be on CNN, in a long 'Town hall' style program, that will boost his program, he is at 985,000 licks on Facebook, so should pass the 1 million, tomorrow, that will become a good talking point for him.
There could be a pole with him at 15% or more by this time next week, the pole may be an outlier, but will again get positive media coverage.
Will he get in the debates? I don't know but it is looking a lot more likely that a few mouths ago.
What is a "lick" on Facebook?
...on second thoughts, like @Cyclefree, is this a question I am going to regret asking?
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
Although you could argue that the false declaration is the wolf at the door for his campaign...
I like you.
I'm also hoping he receives 359 votes.
Astronomers and Star Trek fans will appreciate the Battle of Woolfe 359 reference.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
If you had a conviction of any relevant nature and did not state it when required to do so, then you broke the law. Simple as that.
Seems pretty straight forward. I appreciate that as a non-lawyer sometimes the law can seem opaque and impenetrable to me, but even accepting that the legal profession abounds on interpretation, it seems a wild stretch that being required to declare something and then not doing so is, somehow, above board in such a situation as this, that an omission is not in fact a big deal.
The actual details of the offence seem entirely irrelevant, difficulties with membership dues and nomination papers is trivial party bureaucracy, but a failure to declare something so demonstrably relevant? Even if he is not ruled out he should lose for that, even if it is an innocent oversight.
And I do not say that as someone who fears Woolfe could lead UKIP to further glory and greater parliamentary success - on the contrary, I happen to think a strong third (and more) parties are a good thing (the SNP are regionally focused so not quite the same). It was the LDs, but while I'd like them and UKIP to challenge the big two, I'd be perfectly content with UKIP challenging them alone, and Woolfe might be a good option. But this was pretty stupid of him, and not in particularly forgivable way. Past and particularly youthful indiscretions are easily waved away. This is not that.
It is the sort of thing which if he is not excluded the selectorate will probably not care all that much about. But of course, party selectorates are no arbiters of reasonableness.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
Although you could argue that the false declaration is the wolf at the door for his campaign...
I like you.
I'm also hoping he receives 359 votes.
Astronomers and Star Trek fans will appreciate the Battle of Woolfe 359 reference.
My favourite Wolf 359 titbit... in order for the Borg to get to Wolf 359 from the delta quadrant, they would have first had to go past Earth!
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
If he left it out that is not a false statement as such and unless he faces a prison sentence for the non-disclosure rather than a fine then that still does not stop him running for UKIP leader or indeed UKIP members electing him
Eh? "Required to declare". Not to declare is a false statement.
Required to declare yes but it is only a criminal offence to make a false statement, that would only occur if he explicitly said he had no drink driving convictions rather than omitted to mention them
That standard wording is something like "I've disclosed everything that needs to be declared, and understand that any omission is a criminal offence"
You never get it right with rules parsing, so please think of OGH's bandwidth
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
Although you could argue that the false declaration is the wolf at the door for his campaign...
I like you.
I'm also hoping he receives 359 votes.
Astronomers and Star Trek fans will appreciate the Battle of Woolfe 359 reference.
My favourite Wolf 359 titbit... in order for the Borg to get to Wolf 359 from the delta quadrant, they would have first had to go past Earth!
But this Borg ship came from Beta Quadrant, system J-25, where we first met the Borg in the episode Q Who.
What's going to screw any chance Woolfe has is this.
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
Although you could argue that the false declaration is the wolf at the door for his campaign...
I like you.
I'm also hoping he receives 359 votes.
Astronomers and Star Trek fans will appreciate the Battle of Woolfe 359 reference.
My favourite Wolf 359 titbit... in order for the Borg to get to Wolf 359 from the delta quadrant, they would have first had to go past Earth!
But this Borg ship came from Beta Quadrant, system J-25, where we first met the Borg in the episode Q Who.
beta, delta... it's all roughly in the same direction (just a matter of distance)
“When people try to leave, people stand in the way of the door and are told those trying to leave, they are not leaving and sit down. While people do leave, the actions are an intimidating act ... At our AGM, when electing the LBGT officer, there was some delegates who started limping their wrists to each other and laughing. Homophobic comments have been said by members including ‘Angie the dyke’, making reference to Angela Eagle MP.”
Not sure if already posted but potentially significant:
- Up To 50,000 ‘Registered Supporter’ Applicants In Labour Leadership Election Set To Be Rejected
- About 40,000 of the 183,000 applicants for “registered supporter” status have automatically been deemed unsuitable, with a further 10,000 cases set to go before the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) Oversights Panel for consideration
- Most of those ruled out automatically are deemed ineligible because of their previous formal support for a rival political party candidate, their absence from the electoral register or because their payments bounced
Comments
If the party are serious about making headway up North rather than continuing down a Farage free market libertarian style route of old then Woolfe is the man for the job. Despite his conviction he remains a superior politician and communicator compared to potential competition in Smith, Corbyn or Farron.
The pattern in state polls so far after the convention is Hillary up big in blue states, Trump stable in red states.
But since Trump needs to win blue states, that's a losing hand.
As a barrister, he really should have known better.
If you can't abide by a simple piece of electoral law, then you are not fit for office. Simple as that really.
Nothing to do with party or personality - just the cold hard facts.
But the Pennsylvania poll although not catastrophic for Trump (losing by 3), he's still losing.
Let's wait a week and see, but if by August 15th or so Trump hasn't closed the gap I will re-issue my "Trump is dead" forecast.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/upto-50000-of-183000-registered-supporter-applicants-for-labour-leadership-election-ineligible-or-in-doubt_uk_579fbe4fe4b0459aae5e182d?3t7l9evlnaxj38fr
Make of it, what you will. May the farce continue.
Huzzah.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/clinton-trump-deadlocked-in-latest-georgia-poll/415167092?ecmp=wsbtv_social_twitter_sfp
He should have known better but I can't see it seriously hindering him if allowed to stand. Will Straw's misdemeanours have done him little harm!
For whatever reason some indiscretions are held in lesser regard than others by the public. Woolfe will either fall at the first hurdle or go on to be a successful party leader in my eyes, I don't see this story gaining too much traction now it is out in the open.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/the-best-british-political-insults-rows-and-putdowns/jeremy-corbyn/
he sounds like he wants to challenge the tories on the right........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/the-best-british-political-insults-rows-and-putdowns/david-lloyd-george/
Under electoral rules, police and crime commissioner candidates are required to declare convictions for which they could have received a prison sentence, and it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on nomination papers.
As Chris Huhne can tell you, when the rozzers get involved, it won't end well.
Which is a shame, as I was looking forward to threads headlined 'Hungry like the Woolfe for Labour seats'
That's why Pennsylvania moving +3 to Hillary means that Hillary's bounce is coming from Obama territory, not uniformly from the whole country.
The DNC had a rally around the flag effect among democrats but didn't move the needle with republicans, but Hillary only needs to rally around democrats to win and she has done that so far.
I can imagine Lloyd George's telegrams to John Simon being as nasty as tweets.
Deadlines to get on the state ballots are now coming quick and fast, for 10 states the deadline is today, and another 4 tomorrow, which will mean that in 28 states it is now to late for anybody else could get on the ballot, which should kill any hope of a 'conservative' alternative, and on Wednesday he will be on CNN, in a long 'Town hall' style program, that will boost his program, he is at 985,000 licks on Facebook, so should pass the 1 million, tomorrow, that will become a good talking point for him.
There could be a pole with him at 15% or more by this time next week, the pole may be an outlier, but will again get positive media coverage.
Will he get in the debates? I don't know but it is looking a lot more likely that a few mouths ago.
No chance. But if he had become Police Comminisioner then it would be a Huhne story, given he didn't win the position it's not much of a big deal.
The conviction is now out in the open and we may get the chance to see how UKIP members and then the wider electorate judge it.
Donald Trump has a totally plausible path to 270 electoral votes https://t.co/pddmbdHOfa https://t.co/BA1SPAqAZx
Wasn't Diane James the lady who made a bit of a fruitloop of herself during the Eastleigh by-election?
I have an idea for a thread about how a left of centre party might approach the question of what it's for. If OGH is kind enough to publish it, it seems only kind to share it with Labour. God knows they could do with the help. From Attlee to Corbyn, from Bevan to Smith: if that's not the very essence of going backwards, I don't know what is.
By saying no, he made a false statement.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MCSG_web_-_October_2014.pdf
It is an imprisonable offence, which is what he was asked.
And it wasn't for speeding, it was for drink driving.
Have you been convicted of any offence for which the maximum sentence involves prison time? Yes or No.
Answering no when you have been convicted of being drunk in charge of a vehicle is a lie and thus he broke the law - and has admitted that.
So he has broken electoral law. Simples.
But I admit, the main reason I cheer him on, is I like what he says and hope it will gain traction in the US and by spill over in the rest of the would including the UK. I want it to become possible, acceptable, even cool, to be both socially liberal and economically sane at the same time.
My trip to Florida has been curtailed because of the Zika virus and the Dubai leg of the trip has been buggered because of the weather
Nige still walks on water and Wolfy is his chosen one.
Can't see anyone Nige opposes taking the membership with them.
It's over when he says it is.
...on second thoughts, like @Cyclefree, is this a question I am going to regret asking?
I'm also hoping he receives 359 votes.
Astronomers and Star Trek fans will appreciate the Battle of Woolfe 359 reference.
The actual details of the offence seem entirely irrelevant, difficulties with membership dues and nomination papers is trivial party bureaucracy, but a failure to declare something so demonstrably relevant? Even if he is not ruled out he should lose for that, even if it is an innocent oversight.
And I do not say that as someone who fears Woolfe could lead UKIP to further glory and greater parliamentary success - on the contrary, I happen to think a strong third (and more) parties are a good thing (the SNP are regionally focused so not quite the same). It was the LDs, but while I'd like them and UKIP to challenge the big two, I'd be perfectly content with UKIP challenging them alone, and Woolfe might be a good option. But this was pretty stupid of him, and not in particularly forgivable way. Past and particularly youthful indiscretions are easily waved away. This is not that.
It is the sort of thing which if he is not excluded the selectorate will probably not care all that much about. But of course, party selectorates are no arbiters of reasonableness.
You never get it right with rules parsing, so please think of OGH's bandwidth
But wait for the polls to settle, lots of people misunderstanding how bounces work.
Ireland is a real possibility.
https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/tickets/rail-rover-tickets
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/12lys.gif
Thanks Charles.
http://www.ballynahinch-castle.com/gallery
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/01/angela-eagle-was-target-of-homophobic-abuse-claim-labour-members
“When people try to leave, people stand in the way of the door and are told those trying to leave, they are not leaving and sit down. While people do leave, the actions are an intimidating act ... At our AGM, when electing the LBGT officer, there was some delegates who started limping their wrists to each other and laughing. Homophobic comments have been said by members including ‘Angie the dyke’, making reference to Angela Eagle MP.”
- Up To 50,000 ‘Registered Supporter’ Applicants In Labour Leadership Election Set To Be Rejected
- About 40,000 of the 183,000 applicants for “registered supporter” status have automatically been deemed unsuitable, with a further 10,000 cases set to go before the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) Oversights Panel for consideration
- Most of those ruled out automatically are deemed ineligible because of their previous formal support for a rival political party candidate, their absence from the electoral register or because their payments bounced
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/upto-50000-of-183000-registered-supporter-applicants-for-labour-leadership-election-ineligible-or-in-doubt_uk_579fbe4fe4b0459aae5e182d