Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More data from today’s Trump visit YouGov polling

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,932
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:
    Was Nuttall claiming to have been living in Stoke then? If not cant see how it matters
    Michael Crick says it was put as his home address. See 3.85 below.

    From http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/175376/Part-C-Administering-the-poll-UKPGE-LGEW.pdf

    Home address form
    3.82 Candidates are also required to complete a home address form, which
    must be delivered by hand by the persons who can deliver the nomination
    form and by the close of nominations. The form is not prescribed but the
    information that needs to be provided is set out in law.
    3.83 On the home address form the candidate must state their name and
    home address. The address does not need to be in the constituency in which
    the candidate intends to stand.
    3.84 The home address:
     must be completed in full
     must not contain abbreviations
     must be your current home address
     must not be a business address (unless the candidate runs a business
    from their home)
    21
    3.85 If any detail of the home address is wrong or omitted, the nomination is
    not automatically invalid if the description of the place is such as to be
    commonly understood (see also paragraph 3.115 below).
    Unless he is claiming to have been living in Stoke, I cant see that it matters. As he obviously doesn't claim to be from Stoke, and wouldn't appear to claim to have been living there in any interviews etc, I would say this is an admin error that will not affect the outcome of the by Election in the slightest.
    It's not unusual to give a local address. It is usually that of a local member who may or may not be providing a place to sleep during a campaign. The last but one Conservative candidate in my constituency did so even thought she lived in Solihull.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    PlatoSaid said:

    And cutting through the cobblers again

    Donald J Trump
    Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!

    Is it? Or is it about spending the next four years trying to ratchet up Islamophobia in the knowledge that without fueling such prejudice to new heights his hopes of getting a second term will be dead in the water? Doing so in the cynical knowledge of the greater security threat that that will cause not only to the US but also the UK, as well as the knowledge of the impact on hundreds of thousands of people and families who are no more "bad people" than you or I. All seen as a price worth paying to secure his personal psychotic ambition.
    I have noticed the BBC is now regularly using the term 'Islamic Terrorism' - going to blame the BBC for inciting Islamophobia as well?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    Surprised you're not talking about this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/01/eu-brexit-deal-city-leaked-report-european-parliament-article-50

    Leaked EU parliament report. Basically, if the EU tries to fuck the City, that will fuck the EU, so they might have to be unexpectedly nice to us.

    It is in both the EU's interests and ours to have a sensible, workable post-Brexit settlement.
    Indeed. I reckon logic will prevail. If you listen to the EU Commission then they're gonna turn Britain into a pile of reeking ashes, if you listen to quieter voices in the nation states, Spain, Italy, Sweden, then they want an equable deal.

    They have nothing to fear from Brexit encouraging others. We were only halfway in anyway. We were unique. For those inside the euro, i.e. nearly all of the remaining EU, the die is cast. They can never leave.

    The Commission is subservient to the member states. They will determine the deal we get, not the bureaucrats and MEPs in Brussels.

    So cheer the F up! It's not going to be the Apocalypse. A deal will be done. Our future is neither Utopian nor Dystopian. But we do know that from 2019 the British people will elect and eject all the people who seek to govern us.

    I don't think the sovereignty we will gain will, in practice, compensate for the economic downside of leaving the single market. I slso never felt Britain was particularly emasculated within the EU; not that I have ever been fond of its institutions.

    That, sadly, is the crux. You will not be able to convince the Sovereigners that we were perfectly sovereign as members of the EU. Witness our sovereign decision to leave. The only people talking about a second referendum are the LDs and unless they are a secret EU-funded third column we can say that they are also operating within our sovereign realm.

    It really is insecurity on a grand and tragic scale.
  • Options

    ..must be your current home address..

    Oh dear.

    I think it would be prudent for anyone betting on UKIP to cover their position sharpish...
    Meanwhile the Labour candidate has a view on Brexit.

    https://order-order.com/2017/02/01/labour-stoke-candidate-brexiteers-confused-inward-looking-racists/
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930

    ..must be your current home address..

    Oh dear.

    I think it would be prudent for anyone betting on UKIP to cover their position sharpish...
    Meanwhile the Labour candidate has a view on Brexit.

    https://order-order.com/2017/02/01/labour-stoke-candidate-brexiteers-confused-inward-looking-racists/
    I knew it I knew it I knew it!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have been trying to find those deleted tweets for weeks, well done Guido
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pong said:

    @Richard_Nabavi you are so on the defensive that it's hilarious. No I don't think that those who want earlier term dates are evil or misogynists. According to this: http://howtoadult.com/soon-baby-survive-outside-womb-6167934.html the earliest a child can survive outside the womb is 22 weeks. So there is a case for reducing the term limit to 22 weeks. As for the religious right: they may well be being consistent in their position, but their position has no nuance and argues putting through women who have already been through an incredibly traumatic event with more trauma. Furthermore it also advocates introducing more unwanted children into the world. These same people on the religious right don't like birth control - which is actually a way of preventing abortion.

    On the defensive? Defensive of whom? I was describing other people's views, not mine.

    Not with much success, it has to be said.

    Incidentally, I've never really understood why the date at which a premature baby can survive outside the womb is relevant to the question, especially when that makes the cut-off date dependent on technological advances in incubator design and medical gizmos. For that matter, a new-born baby can't survive unaided. It's always seemed to me to be an entirely irrelevant point, and it's certainly irrelevant for those whose opposition to abortion is based on a religious principle.
    Very off topic - but kinda relevant.

    One of the unfortunate blindspots of PB is the hardcore religious right.

    The people with serious moral objections to the idea of political betting generally don't visit the site and/or comment.
    There was someone once - numnutz. I remember having a huge argument (about discrimination against Catholics or something) with him but couldn't take him seriously because the angrier he got the more he reminded me of Penfold

    https://community.bt.com/t5/media/v1/gallerypage/user-id/13145/image-id/2737i9CE35836CD5BEA77
  • Options
    BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    edited February 2017
    can always rely on Guido!
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,980

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    I see that the Scottish govenment has started a 'consultation' on fracking.

    http://www.talkingfracking.scot/

    Does this mean:

    a) They don't have a policy

    b) They want to give it the go-ahead, but put the blame on other people to dodge future protests

    They want backup for full ban.
    That would be the outright ban that the SNP abstained on when it was voted on at Holyrood?
    They will still ban it but not at the behest of Labour donkeys.
    Or they will allow it at the behest of Ineos. Let's wait and see.
    want a wager on that
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    Brom said:

    can always rely on Guido!

    How do you find these tweets? I was 1/100 that this Snell would have slagged off Brexit voters, and was hunting like a dog after a bone!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,462

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    What the mirror image of Nuttall?

    - Notatall?
    - Nutnot?
    - Nutting?

    Jonathan said:

    Not sure it's great for the LDs to position themselves as the mirror image of UKIP.

    Shame Farage has gone (for now), I'd have liked Farron to title himself the Antifarage.
    What the mirror image of Nuttall?

    - Notatall?
    - Nutnot?
    - Nutting?
    Nutless
This discussion has been closed.