Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.
The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.
When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?
It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled
The leftist press!! In the US!!! Sensational headlines. Can you believe it? Democracy is in peril. Such scrutiny should not be allowed.
Obviously, though, it was absolutely fine for the head of the FBI to scupper Hillary Clinton just a few weeks before the presidential election. And as for voter suppression. That's not a problem at all.
Here's a strange notion: what if Trump has taken note of the warnings about Flynn given to him by the DoJ, confidentially and unleaked. weeks ago?
'PlatoSaid' is a spoof poster - this was revealed last week. Best to laugh along or ignore.
What.... the poster who claimed to have watched '"literally hundreds of hours of Jeremy Kyle". All that insight into the complex workings of a Trump voter... A SPOOF?
How many of the last major political betting events have you called right, Rogerdamus? This is politicalbetting, after all, not politicalhandwringing.
Posters have been making money betting against my predictions for years. I was the one who cemented Mike's 50/1 on Obama by saying 'Don't touch it with a bargepole'
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgHlAdSpn7Y
Are we getting as Oscars piece from you this year?
I'm struggling. I thought Mama Mia was at least as good as Lalaland so I'm probably not with the post Trump zeitgeist. But I'll probaly have a go.....
Glad to hear you’ll give it a go, Roger, your PB Oscar threads are always a pleasure.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
So not a dissimilar result, just with more variations. And of course I suspect much less money wagered!
I have a small LibDem saver on "Any Other" on the Copeland/Stoke double. You can get better odds on LD on the double than on Stoke alone. In fact I was able to arb between betting on the LDs on the double and laying LDs at Stoke. But arb no longer available.
So not a dissimilar result, just with more variations. And of course I suspect much less money wagered!
I have a small LibDem saver on "Any Other" on the Copeland/Stoke double. You can get better odds on LD on the double than on Stoke alone. In fact I was able to arb between betting on the LDs on the double and laying LDs at Stoke. But arb no longer available.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
I am not sure what is wrong with Trump staff having contact with Russian officials during the election campaign. I have little doubt that UK embassy and FO staff will have been working hard to get to know them too and been in regular contact trying to ascertain what their policy positions were evolving into and seeking to guide them in a way favourable to us.
The NYT isn't exactly impartial either - the agendas of most outlets are plain as day.
When members of your own Transition team inc Obama legacy - are spying/selectively leaking your phone calls to discredit you?? And leftist press creating sensational headlines?
It's abominable and sinister Deep State. If we discovered Mi5 was doing this - we'd be appalled
The leftist press!! In the US!!! Sensational headlines. Can you believe it? Democracy is in peril. Such scrutiny should not be allowed.
Obviously, though, it was absolutely fine for the head of the FBI to scupper Hillary Clinton just a few weeks before the presidential election. And as for voter suppression. That's not a problem at all.
Here's a strange notion: what if Trump has taken note of the warnings about Flynn given to him by the DoJ, confidentially and unleaked. weeks ago?
'PlatoSaid' is a spoof poster - this was revealed last week. Best to laugh along or ignore.
What.... the poster who claimed to have watched '"literally hundreds of hours of Jeremy Kyle". All that insight into the complex workings of a Trump voter... A SPOOF?
How many of the last major political betting events have you called right, Rogerdamus? This is politicalbetting, after all, not politicalhandwringing.
Posters have been making money betting against my predictions for years. I was the one who cemented Mike's 50/1 on Obama by saying 'Don't touch it with a bargepole'
Are we getting as Oscars piece from you this year?
I'm struggling. I thought Mama Mia was at least as good as Lalaland so I'm probably not with the post Trump zeitgeist. But I'll probaly have a go.....
Don't forget the electorate for the Oscars resides largely in Lalaland, which is likely to colour their view a little. Movie left me a bit cold, but Randy Kerber's piano is outstanding.
Majorities of Americans believe President Donald Trump keeps his promises, is a strong and decisive leader, and can bring about changes the country needs. Trump scores worse on other characteristics and qualities: Less than half of Americans perceive him as honest and trustworthy, able to manage the government effectively, inspiring confidence and caring about the needs of people like themselves.
For the record 'PlatoSaid' predicted a narrow Hillary Clinton win at Potus 2016. And nobody is accusing the account of being a bot. The user(s) is/are extremely skilled at extreme satire. Hats off!
If she upsets you so much, why not take your own advice and ignore.
I'm applauding the account!
No, you are attempting to close down any debate on Trump that does not fit your narrative.
As I showed below, Plato's 'facts' are often wrong. If 'closing down the debate' means correcting falsehoods, then perhaps we should have more debates closed down.
Just for the records its worth noting that the neutrality of snopes is starting to look a bit shaky, specifically they are refusing to comment on its assessment process, the people involved etc, and largely responds to any requests for details about their inner workings as, in effect, "its a secret"
After 2,500 words, does Forbes actually get to the point and if so, what is it?
This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of “its secret.” Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings.
And so what? At best this is playing the man not the ball. No evidence is presented that claims Snopes calls true are false or vice versa. It is just a long whinge about transparency with no apparent attempt to seek details from someone not bound by a court agreement, and a back of a fag packet proposal for how such a service might be run.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
For the record 'PlatoSaid' predicted a narrow Hillary Clinton win at Potus 2016. And nobody is accusing the account of being a bot. The user(s) is/are extremely skilled at extreme satire. Hats off!
If she upsets you so much, why not take your own advice and ignore.
I'm applauding the account!
No, you are attempting to close down any debate on Trump that does not fit your narrative.
As I showed below, Plato's 'facts' are often wrong. If 'closing down the debate' means correcting falsehoods, then perhaps we should have more debates closed down.
Just for the records its worth noting that the neutrality of snopes is starting to look a bit shaky, specifically they are refusing to comment on its assessment process, the people involved etc, and largely responds to any requests for details about their inner workings as, in effect, "its a secret"
After 2,500 words, does Forbes actually get to the point and if so, what is it?
This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of “its secret.” Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings.
And so what? At best this is playing the man not the ball. No evidence is presented that claims Snopes calls true are false or vice versa. It is just a long whinge about transparency with no apparent attempt to seek details from someone not bound by a court agreement, and a back of a fag packet proposal for how such a service might be run.
So nothing, if you want to continue to trust a fact checking organisation that won't tell you who and how its is doing the fact checking, be by guest.
Article on recorded hate crimes, but it'd be more useful if the number of prosecutions (and successful ones) were included: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Article on recorded hate crimes, but it'd be more useful if the number of prosecutions (and successful ones) were included: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087
Wasn't Rudd's conference speech recorded as a hate crime?
Article on recorded hate crimes, but it'd be more useful if the number of prosecutions (and successful ones) were included: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
The best result for Brexit would be 2 narrow Labour wins, and thats the way Im leaning. Labours woes started the moment they selected Snell over Dr Stephen Hitchin - did he pull out? Now stuck with Snell they're screwed and up against the incompetent Nuttall it does open the door for the tories and libs ever so slightly.
Whichever seat labour loses of the two then the won they win will be forgotten. I'm just not sure the Tories want those 'Corbyn's Labour falling apart' headlines. I do think they could win Copeland if they really wanted to, but given how well Brexit is going why bother risk derailing it?
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
Article on recorded hate crimes, but it'd be more useful if the number of prosecutions (and successful ones) were included: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087
Wasn't Rudd's conference speech recorded as a hate crime?
Yes, it's a meaningless phrase. The only crime stats that matter are prosecutions. No doubt someone out there reported David Davis's joke as a hate crime, sadly some people just want to waste police time.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
No party stays near 47% forever. Who benefits when the SNP tide pulls back ?
Lib Dems a bit, Tories some more. Labour looks destined to be forever sunk piling up useless 20-30% in Glasgow to me. The Holyrood system gives them some seats but they're headed towards extinction so far as I can tell. What exactly is the point of Scottish Labour ?
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
Re Trump / Flynn and the Russians, this is not the first time that Presidential candidates have - or have been accused of - making secret deals with opponents/enemies or of doing down their own country.
Two examples:-
1. Before the 1968 Presidential election, some aides working for Nixon promised the South Vietnamese government that they would likely get better terms with a Nixon rather than a Humphreys Presidency. The peace talks that were then taking place did not result in a deal and this may have helped scuttle the Democrats' campaign.
2. There were also credible reports that people acting on behalf of Reagan were in contact with the Iranian regime and that this was one of the reasons the announcement about the release of the hostages was made at the start of Reagan's presidency rather than at the end of Carter's.
Trump is not the first and not even necessarily the worst. Scuppering peace talks cost lives.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
However, they could go back to the most recent prosecution figures and compare the rise/decline with the corresponding changes in reported 'hate speech'.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
Article on recorded hate crimes, but it'd be more useful if the number of prosecutions (and successful ones) were included: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087
Wasn't Rudd's conference speech recorded as a hate crime?
Yes, it's a meaningless phrase. The only crime stats that matter are prosecutions. No doubt someone out there reported David Davis's joke as a hate crime, sadly some people just want to waste police time.
Then of course we have another unauthenticated government online reporting system where anyone can report alleged hate crime any number of times. When will the government learn how easy it is to automate filling in those sort of forms as many times as you like.
Re Trump / Flynn and the Russians, this is not the first time that Presidential candidates have - or have been accused of - making secret deals with opponents/enemies or of doing down their own country.
Two examples:-
1. Before the 1968 Presidential election, some aides working for Nixon promised the South Vietnamese government that they would likely get better terms with a Nixon rather than a Humphreys Presidency. The peace talks that were then taking place did not result in a deal and this may have helped scuttle the Democrats' campaign.
2. There were also credible reports that people acting on behalf of Reagan were in contact with the Iranian regime and that this was one of the reasons the announcement about the release of the hostages was made at the start of Reagan's presidency rather than at the end of Carter's.
Trump is not the first and not even necessarily the worst. Scuppering peace talks cost lives.
Good points and I agree that both are much worse than lifting sanctions on Putin. Both Republicans obviously.
Nixon got impeached and Reagan was never proved.... If it had been I think that would have sunk him.
The best result for Brexit would be 2 narrow Labour wins, and thats the way Im leaning. Labours woes started the moment they selected Snell over Dr Stephen Hitchin - did he pull out? Now stuck with Snell they're screwed and up against the incompetent Nuttall it does open the door for the tories and libs ever so slightly.
Whichever seat labour loses of the two then the won they win will be forgotten. I'm just not sure the Tories want those 'Corbyn's Labour falling apart' headlines. I do think they could win Copeland if they really wanted to, but given how well Brexit is going why bother risk derailing it?
While I do think (and have bet) that Labour will win both, I would disagree on the interpretation of such a result.
Corbyn has a limpit like hold on the leadership. Even two defeats would not unseat him, as he simply refuses to resign. Two victories may also energise the grassroots into feeling that they can take back their party, first from the Spadocracy, and then from the entryists. Indeed I would see the step via Corbyn as the nessecary route back to a true grass roots party.
This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.
' My student; the anti-Semite
...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'
The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.
In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the
Nothing wrong with looking beyond the reading list, but lacking discernment to judge Irving's credibility is more damning.
Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.
Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.
It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.
BBC - UK unemployment fell by 7,000 to 1.6 million in three months to December, while average earnings rose 2.6%, figures show.
Despite Brexit..?
A tribute to George Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy.
He didn't realise how Brexit proof he made the economy.
Huzzah for George.
The Conservative Party web site thinks George is still Chancellor, so you should probably take any 100/1 around that he will be reappointed next week to steal the headlines from the byelections. Thank me later. https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Members_of_Parliament/Osborne_George [content="Biography of the Member of Parliament for Tatton and Chancellor of the Exchequer."]
See if you can back George in a treble with Hammond as Foreign Secretary and the web team having been laid off after the last election.
This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.
' My student; the anti-Semite
...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'
The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.
In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the
Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..
Heh.
The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.
It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.
This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.
' My student; the anti-Semite
...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'
The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.
In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the
Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..
Heh.
The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.
It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.
Have you seen "Denial" ?
Shows the best of the English legal system I think.
Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.
Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.
The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May. Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?
Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.
Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?
No party stays near 47% forever. Who benefits when the SNP tide pulls back ?
Lib Dems a bit, Tories some more. Labour looks destined to be forever sunk piling up useless 20-30% in Glasgow to me. The Holyrood system gives them some seats but they're headed towards extinction so far as I can tell. What exactly is the point of Scottish Labour ?
"Not the Tories" turns out not to be a ubiquitous selling point when another "not Tory" party turns out to be appealing.
Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.
Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.
It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.
The Cardassians were right, trying the innocent is barbaric.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.
Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.
It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.
Not all accusations, just accusations made by the state
Had a bit of spare time so looked round the general politics markets this morning. I think laying Le Pen at 3.65 is the closest to free money. People betting on her simply don't understand the French two-round system.
Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.
Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.
It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.
I agree completely Dr Dancer. My point was rather about the politics than the law, although I dont remotely discount the importance of what you are saying.
Unauthenticated systems like this, and the petition system make it trivial for a few people with an axe to grind to start a political band wagon rolling and get also sorts of camp followers excited enough to splash front page stories on the basis of what is in effect no more than an exercise in ballot stuffing.
Worse than that they make the whole statistical basis of the measurement untrustworthy, so where at times there might be a real problem or in the case of the petition site, a valid public interest, it would be impossible to discern it from the chaff of all the chancers trying to either cause trouble or start a bandwagon rolling.
This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.
' My student; the anti-Semite
...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'
The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.
In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the
Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..
Heh.
The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.
It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.
Have you seen "Denial" ?
Shows the best of the English legal system I think.
I have, saw it twice, Tom Wilkinson as Richard Rampton was awesome and as you said, showed the best of the English legal system.
People betting on her simply don't understand the French two-round system.
Not to mention nationalism enthusiasts who followed their hearts and backed Brexit and Trump must reckon they're total political betting geniuses, they can totally feel it happening again...
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has no chance still because Fillon wasn't damaged enough to be defeated by any other candidate.
There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.
Labour leaflet seems in response to the Lib Dem last weekend which was much better, pitures and message. And they say they are not bothered about the Lib Dems!!!!
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
Mr. Eagles, on balance, mine too. More shades of grey, and the recurring secondary cast (Ferengi aside...) add more depth. Garak, Dukat, Damar, Weyoun, that security chap whose name I always forget etc.
O/T. I see Rolf Harris faces yet another trial. While I have every sympathy for the women involved if he’s guilty, it’s beginning to look a bit vindictive.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984
The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has no chance still because Fillon wasn't damaged enough to be defeated by any other candidate.
There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.
She's only 58-42 down in some of the head to head polls, that's close enough to be overturned.
Anyone saying she has no chance hasn't learnt their lesson from the last year of politics.
...I do think they [the Tories] could win Copeland if they really wanted to, but given how well Brexit is going why bother risk derailing it?
An increase of 2 on the tiny majority would not go amiss.
This is true but given Labour's problems with the whips it feels like they have more than the 12 seat or whatever it is majority. Muddling on with a small majority will be a lot easier than facing up to Keir Starmer at PMQs - even if that seems an unlikely scenario at this stage.
Mr. Eagles, on balance, mine too. More shades of grey, and the recurring secondary cast (Ferengi aside...) add more depth. Garak, Dukat, Damar, Weyoun, that security chap whose name I always forget etc.
Keeping tabs on how Discovery's coming along?
Odo.
Well Discovery is turning into a bigger disaster than the next Batman movie.
But they made some further casting announcements the other day.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
Lol, "Local Doctors have said", local doctors such as the candidate ?
Also, I'm curious as to how a vote for Labour can save the local hospital. What's the mechanism for this remarkable claim, I wonder?
Voting Tory sure as hell won't save it!
This is what the STP schemes for the NHS mean in rural areas. In Leics the closure of Leicester General, Hinckley hospital and Rutland Memorial Hospital are tolerable, but in more rural areas like Copeland?
Vote Tory in Copeland if you want to have all inpatient care in Carlisle.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984
The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.
Considering the Employment Ratio is at its highest ever level where other than JSA claimants are these extra unemployed sitting on the dole queue? I thought the dole queue was JSA.
Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?
Lol, "Local Doctors have said", local doctors such as the candidate ?
Also, I'm curious as to how a vote for Labour can save the local hospital. What's the mechanism for this remarkable claim, I wonder?
What was the mechanism for Hague's party saving the pound (after Gordon Brown had already saved it iirc)? Surely the Conservative candidate will also promise to save the hospital (as well as put an end to flooding): it is the usual form. https://www.trudyharrison.co.uk/campaigns/making-most-moorside
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.
If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has no chance still because Fillon wasn't damaged enough to be defeated by any other candidate.
There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.
She's only 58-42 down in some of the head to head polls, that's close enough to be overturned.
Anyone saying she has no chance hasn't learnt their lesson from the last year of politics.
What upset in the last year had 58-42 as the most favourable polls?
Both Brexit and Trump were ahead in their most favourable polls (and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions). I don't recall any upset in the last year of politics that involved overturning a 16 percent poll lead in their most favourable polls let alone average ones.
What was the mechanism for Hague's party saving the pound (after Gordon Brown had already saved it iirc)?
The mechanism was that a Hague government would never have taken us into the Euro. As it happened, the Labour government didn't either, but voters weren't to know that at the time since it was Labour policy to take us in.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
Had a bit of spare time so looked round the general politics markets this morning. I think laying Le Pen at 3.65 is the closest to free money. People betting on her simply don't understand the French two-round system.
I understand the French two-round system perfectly and I am betting on her, not because I think she is particularly likely to win, but because I have traded my way over the past few months to a very healthy all green book and Le Pen is probably the safest haven for my hard-earned potential profit at the moment.
Macron's momentum has all but stopped and over half of his supporters polled say they might change their mind.
Fillon could withdraw from the race at a moment's notice due to his legal situation and anyway his head to head figure against Le Pen was shown to be 56-44 in a poll last week -hardly an insurmountable lead.
Yes Le Pen should probably be longer odds, but I would rather trade out at longer odds and keep most of my profit on the market rather than seeing a large profit on Macron or Fillon go to waste if the former does not hold on to his support or the latter has to pull out.
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984
The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.
Considering the Employment Ratio is at its highest ever level where other than JSA claimants are these extra unemployed sitting on the dole queue? I thought the dole queue was JSA.
Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?
Unemployed = economically inactive and looking for work JSA = all sorts of other requirements, for example, must take a job if offered
Andrew Neil @afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m
The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.
Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.
Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?
twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984
The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.
Considering the Employment Ratio is at its highest ever level where other than JSA claimants are these extra unemployed sitting on the dole queue? I thought the dole queue was JSA.
Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?
tsk tsk. Its has feck all to do with stay at home parents they are not in the figures.
The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work: - people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week - young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place - students looking for part‐time work or vacation work - people who have left their job voluntarily - people with savings of over £16,000.
The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.
Mr. Eagles, not Odo! He's a main bloody character.
The Federation chap who likes Les Miserables.
The next Star Trek shouldn't be another damned prequel series, but take place a few decades after the events of DS9. Have the Alpha Quadrant imploding, the Federation torn apart by militant types who want to maintain a war footing, those who want to return to democracy and isolationists; the Klingons split between traditionalists who won't support Martok (as a peasant chancellor) and warriors who will etc etc.
It fits both the real world Zeitgeist *and* the Star Trek universe perfectly. It also creates an interesting situation and avoids the "We're exploring. Again" problem.
Mr. Eagles, not Odo! He's a main bloody character.
The Federation chap who likes Les Miserables.
The next Star Trek shouldn't be another damned prequel series, but take place a few decades after the events of DS9. Have the Alpha Quadrant imploding, the Federation torn apart by militant types who want to maintain a war footing, those who want to return to democracy and isolationists; the Klingons split between traditionalists who won't support Martok (as a peasant chancellor) and warriors who will etc etc.
It fits both the real world Zeitgeist *and* the Star Trek universe perfectly. It also creates an interesting situation and avoids the "We're exploring. Again" problem.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital's A+E and maternity units?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.
To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections
The decision is everything to do with the government.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.
A more honest Conservative candidate would not be opposing her own government, but would rather be arguing that services would be better centralised in Carlisle.
Such local hospital closures are particularly hard on those without their own transport, the WWC and elderly in particular.
Comments
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11701/10737219/watch-hilarious-mascot-greets-stokes-players-and-staff-before-man-utd-game
[I remember having huge problems, especially with 2012, despite that being one of my best seasons].
"They'd rather have the poor poorer...."
Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.
EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!
https://twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status/831789805243662338
Movie left me a bit cold, but Randy Kerber's piano is outstanding.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203915/americans-say-trump-keeps-promises-strong-leader.asp
Majorities of Americans believe President Donald Trump keeps his promises, is a strong and decisive leader, and can bring about changes the country needs. Trump scores worse on other characteristics and qualities: Less than half of Americans perceive him as honest and trustworthy, able to manage the government effectively, inspiring confidence and caring about the needs of people like themselves.
As the focus has switched to what he is claimed to have said about others, is it safe to assume he was there now?
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.
Surely Hamon has to drop out now ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087
1) With the CPS for a charging decision.
Or
2) Or awaiting trial at the big court
So those stats aren't available.
It was certainly dull-witted and tin-eared.
Now stuck with Snell they're screwed and up against the incompetent Nuttall it does open the door for the tories and libs ever so slightly.
Whichever seat labour loses of the two then the won they win will be forgotten. I'm just not sure the Tories want those 'Corbyn's Labour falling apart' headlines. I do think they could win Copeland if they really wanted to, but given how well Brexit is going why bother risk derailing it?
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/831511833844523008
Lib Dems a bit, Tories some more. Labour looks destined to be forever sunk piling up useless 20-30% in Glasgow to me. The Holyrood system gives them some seats but they're headed towards extinction so far as I can tell.
What exactly is the point of Scottish Labour ?
Two examples:-
1. Before the 1968 Presidential election, some aides working for Nixon promised the South Vietnamese government that they would likely get better terms with a Nixon rather than a Humphreys Presidency. The peace talks that were then taking place did not result in a deal and this may have helped scuttle the Democrats' campaign.
2. There were also credible reports that people acting on behalf of Reagan were in contact with the Iranian regime and that this was one of the reasons the announcement about the release of the hostages was made at the start of Reagan's presidency rather than at the end of Carter's.
Trump is not the first and not even necessarily the worst. Scuppering peace talks cost lives.
Peerages are for plebs like JohnO and myself.
However, they could go back to the most recent prosecution figures and compare the rise/decline with the corresponding changes in reported 'hate speech'.
Both Republicans obviously.
Nixon got impeached and Reagan was never proved.... If it had been I think that would have sunk him.
Corbyn has a limpit like hold on the leadership. Even two defeats would not unseat him, as he simply refuses to resign. Two victories may also energise the grassroots into feeling that they can take back their party, first from the Spadocracy, and then from the entryists. Indeed I would see the step via Corbyn as the nessecary route back to a true grass roots party.
Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.
It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/831828105966792705/photo/1
https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Members_of_Parliament/Osborne_George
[content="Biography of the Member of Parliament for Tatton and Chancellor of the Exchequer."]
See if you can back George in a treble with Hammond as Foreign Secretary and the web team having been laid off after the last election.
The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.
It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.
Shows the best of the English legal system I think.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.117179983
Unauthenticated systems like this, and the petition system make it trivial for a few people with an axe to grind to start a political band wagon rolling and get also sorts of camp followers excited enough to splash front page stories on the basis of what is in effect no more than an exercise in ballot stuffing.
Worse than that they make the whole statistical basis of the measurement untrustworthy, so where at times there might be a real problem or in the case of the petition site, a valid public interest, it would be impossible to discern it from the chaff of all the chancers trying to either cause trouble or start a bandwagon rolling.
Mr. Eagles, last episode of DS9 on CBS Action tonight (freeview 64, 8pm). I do really like the last few series.
There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.
Keeping tabs on how Discovery's coming along?
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/latestnews/bath-north-east-somerset-council-statement-following-conviction-cllr-donal-hassett
Cultivating grass for profit...
Anyone saying she has no chance hasn't learnt their lesson from the last year of politics.
Well Discovery is turning into a bigger disaster than the next Batman movie.
But they made some further casting announcements the other day.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-three-more-join-cast
This is what the STP schemes for the NHS mean in rural areas. In Leics the closure of Leicester General, Hinckley hospital and Rutland Memorial Hospital are tolerable, but in more rural areas like Copeland?
Vote Tory in Copeland if you want to have all inpatient care in Carlisle.
Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?
https://www.trudyharrison.co.uk/campaigns/making-most-moorside
Both Brexit and Trump were ahead in their most favourable polls (and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions). I don't recall any upset in the last year of politics that involved overturning a 16 percent poll lead in their most favourable polls let alone average ones.
Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.
The employment survey rate, which puts the figure at 1.6m is a more reliable measure and more consistent over time.
Macron's momentum has all but stopped and over half of his supporters polled say they might change their mind.
Fillon could withdraw from the race at a moment's notice due to his legal situation and anyway his head to head figure against Le Pen was shown to be 56-44 in a poll last week -hardly
an insurmountable lead.
Yes Le Pen should probably be longer odds, but I would rather trade out at longer odds and keep most of my profit on the market rather than seeing a large profit on Macron or Fillon go to waste if the former does not hold on to his support or the latter has to pull out.
JSA = all sorts of other requirements, for example, must take a job if offered
The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work:
- people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week
- young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place
- students looking for part‐time work or vacation work
- people who have left their job voluntarily
- people with savings of over £16,000.
The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.
The Federation chap who likes Les Miserables.
The next Star Trek shouldn't be another damned prequel series, but take place a few decades after the events of DS9. Have the Alpha Quadrant imploding, the Federation torn apart by militant types who want to maintain a war footing, those who want to return to democracy and isolationists; the Klingons split between traditionalists who won't support Martok (as a peasant chancellor) and warriors who will etc etc.
It fits both the real world Zeitgeist *and* the Star Trek universe perfectly. It also creates an interesting situation and avoids the "We're exploring. Again" problem.
Well, it's a view I suppose.
But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.
What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.
Poor fellow. Survived Sisko's vendetta only to be killed when his wife got herself in trouble.
A more honest Conservative candidate would not be opposing her own government, but would rather be arguing that services would be better centralised in Carlisle.
Such local hospital closures are particularly hard on those without their own transport, the WWC and elderly in particular.