politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Times reporting that the Tories are “deeply worried” about

SystemSystem Posts: 12,263
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Times reporting that the Tories are “deeply worried” about possible action over the GE2015 expenses investigation

Times says Downing St fears 2015 results in up to 6 seats cld be void if prosecutions follow #C4News expenses inquiry pic.twitter.com/AjF2vWm5qn

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,373
    The problem for Mrs May is that she can't pin this on the ancien régime given how much her Chief of Staff is implicated in all of this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    WHere are the other 5 seats ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,373
    Off topic, Tyrone Mings is a disgrace. He deserves a twenty match ban, that I sympathise with a Manchester United player.

    Jamie Carragher is right, Mings deserves a slap.

    Kevin Friend lost it, this match won't end well.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,373
    Pulpstar said:

    WHere are the other 5 seats ?

    Not specified.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    I've laid Juppe back to pretty much zero this morning. Hoping for Fillon to be a stubborn old goat tommorow at the Troc.
  • partypoliticalorphanpartypoliticalorphan Posts: 374
    In some ways I hope this matter does reach court. Main parties are always playing fast and loose with election expense rules.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    At least Labour can't lose any seats if the by-elections are all in Tory constituencies.

    I agree that Labour gains are highly unlikely even on the back of electoral dodginess.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,736
    Surely by-elections would only happen after successful prosecutions?

    ie CPS has to decide to prosecute and the MP then has to be convicted.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    Pulpstar said:

    I've laid Juppe back to pretty much zero this morning. Hoping for Fillon to be a stubborn old goat tommorow at the Troc.

    I like the way in the course of reposting you've gone from hoping he has a good rally to hoping he's a stubborn old goat. :) Obviously not too confident about the rally!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    williamglenn said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I've laid Juppe back to pretty much zero this morning. Hoping for Fillon to be a stubborn old goat tommorow at the Troc.

    I like the way in the course of reposting you've gone from hoping he has a good rally to hoping he's a stubborn old goat. :) Obviously not too confident about the rally!
    Either works, obviously I hope his rally goes well. Plenty of French flags there I expect.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.
  • braeside02braeside02 Posts: 31
    Watergate-MK2 already,unless DT has been listening to too many conservative commentators.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    All parties get up to shady election expenses stuff, or so it seems, but the Tories seem to have been particularly egregious if this is true. It would be worrisome if they escaped punishment (should they be guilty) on the basis that it is so many it would cause too much of a problem.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited March 2017
    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Yeah that would go down really well. It is also why UKIP need to keep going, because the public can not let their guard down, the "establishment" will be all too happy to thwart Brexit by any means.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Alanbrooke said:

    williamglenn said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    kle4 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    It appears that regardless of 'business as usua'l and the durability of the DUP, NI Unionism is heading one way.

    https://twitter.com/St_Anderson38/status/837867338179436544

    An unhelpful parallel because prior to 1972 the Stormont Parliament was gerrymandered on a grand scale. The most egregious example was Londonderry - in the 1950s 60% of voters were Catholic but 60% of representatives were Protestant. So those figures are actually menaningless.

    You should probably keep to the numbers since 1998 - and also compare them relative to the Nationalists to exclude non-sectarian parties. These show pretty consistent if narrow Unionisit majorities, with a sudden drop when their leader stands accused of vast corruption and incompetence.
    The % votes/seats are as follows:
    Nationalist 41.6%/40 (SF/SDLP/PBP)
    Unionist 44.6%/40 (DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP/Con), including 1 IND seat
    Non-sectarian/others 14.0%/10 (Alliance/Green/others)

    NI is now very close to a tipping point, like Scotland, and the Brexit vote hasn't helped with regard to maintaining the integrity of the UK.

    It is increasingly hard to see how the UK stays together. We are living in a deeply divided country and there is no sign that these divisions can be healed. Planned separation may now be the best bet.

    Really we needed a big constitutional settlement some time ago. A daunting, perhaps impossible task, but as much faith as I have in the British approach of almost accidental reform, it's being sorely tested right now.

    Yep - I was an advocate of a Constitutional convention and suggested a few times on here to much derision after the Scottish independence referendum. But we are moving past that window now. Sacrificing power to keep the UK together is something that Westminster simply would not contemplate.

    Westminster has been happily voting to send power to Brussels for the last 40 years and has approved 3 regional assemblies

    It's amazing how after 40 years of 'sending power' to Brussels and to the home nations, Westminster still has absolute power to do anything, as we're seeing with Article 50. It can impose direct rule on Northern Ireland, just as it can impose direct rule on the United Kingdom as a whole.
    left to its own sentiment HoC would overwhemiingly vote to stay in the EU.

    The referendum removed that option.
    It didn't remove the option, it just made doing it politically much more difficult, to the point of in-feasibility.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    edited March 2017
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited March 2017
    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    She wouldn't let it get to that though. In the unlikely scenario of it seeming like there will be a huge number of reruns of elections before 2020, she can engineer one.

    Besides there are so many ifs in the nuclear scenario. Have for the cps to prosecute, the candidates to be found guilty, the punishment to be more than fines, Tories to lose seats against corbyn labour and Walter Mitty led ukip...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The problem for Mrs May is that she can't pin this on the ancien régime given how much her Chief of Staff is implicated in all of this.

    Nice try.

    The problem for the Cameroons is they can't blame shift given how long and how often they have told us how brilliant Dave and George were on winning seats.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    braeside02 said:

    Watergate-MK2 already,unless DT has been listening to too many conservative commentators.

    It doesn't appear to be Trump's fevered imagination, it will be very interesting to hear what grounds the FISA court had for granting a warrant, they had better be good.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    kle4 said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
    The opposition parties could get out of playing ball easily - just say that in these turbulent times the nation needs stability and certainty, not a government indulging in the shoddily dangerous opportunism of contrived elections. Cant probably, but it would still work.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    kle4 said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
    A simple majority will do - a government can not be bound by its predecessors.

    But the Government does need to first repeal the FTPA, which will require some dedicated effort.

    Other wise yes a (Frankly unahcievable) 2/3 majority is needed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion.

    Labour suddenly going to say they no longer respect the decision of the referendum? Even though Labour voted for the referendum bill?

    What about the government losing its majority affects that Labour voted for the referendum bill and have just recently, despite rebellion, voted to authorise the enacting of the result? Sure, depending on what government was formed had the Tories not won these seats it allegedly cheated in the bill may never have been proposed and become law, but Labour's actions during its progression and the referendum aftermath would seem to indicate they will not be interested in seizing this opportunity.

    Labour's position is critical, and since they are not going the LD route, if they were to change tack it would be because they think the public can be convinced such is ok, it would be because they think the public have already shifted into a position where that is what they want. That is where any real opportunity would come.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    Stark_Dawning said:

    In these turbulent times the nation needs stability and certainty

    The government won't go for an election precisely because it is focusing all of its efforts on Brexit.
    There is a clear majority for that in the commons, it is the other place that is giving May grief - and a GE does diddly squat to the Lords.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    The other thing with cricks investigation is that in many seats he has made shall we say a huge leap of "logic" to be able to claim Tories exceeded spending, whereby he decided all of certain spending should 100% be claimed as local not national or a bit of both.

    It is one thing crick making these claims, making it stand up in court is quite another eg how many journos were found guilty of phone hacking in the end and got jail time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    edited March 2017
    Stark_Dawning said:

    kle4 said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
    The opposition parties could get out of playing ball easily - just say that in these turbulent times the nation needs stability and certainty, not a government indulging in the shoddily dangerous opportunism of contrived elections. Cant probably, but it would still work.
    I believe that, its one of several reasons I think May has so far and will continue to resist the temptation which must be there to try to call one, but my point was losing her majority doesn't seem to impact that much whether she would try to make the attempt or not. She needed Labour to play ball either way for the easiest route at the least, and as you say they could have done so (it would be ridiculed, but better ridicule than consenting to an election they'd lose).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    edited March 2017
    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The problem for Mrs May is that she can't pin this on the ancien régime given how much her Chief of Staff is implicated in all of this.

    Nice try.

    The problem for the Cameroons is they can't blame shift given how long and how often they have told us how brilliant Dave and George were on winning seats.
    The Cameroons having problems doesn't matter because they are not in situ, so it doesn't work as a distraction.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    SandyRentool said:

    At least Labour can't lose any seats if the by-elections are all in Tory constituencies.

    I agree that Labour gains are highly unlikely even on the back of electoral dodginess.

    Depends how far off they are. Labour might be better placed to win such seats in 12 months time.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    Corbyn is unlikely to help her call an election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Pulpstar said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    In these turbulent times the nation needs stability and certainty

    The government won't go for an election precisely because it is focusing all of its efforts on Brexit.
    There is a clear majority for that in the commons, it is the other place that is giving May grief - and a GE does diddly squat to the Lords.
    Unless someone were to propose abolishing or hobbling it and then won I suppose, although of course they could always choose to do that now if they wanted.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,783
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The other thing with cricks investigation is that in many seats he has made shall we say a huge leap of "logic" to be able to claim Tories exceeded spending, whereby he decided all of certain spending should 100% be claimed as local not national or a bit of both.

    It is one thing crick making these claims, making it stand up in court is quite another eg how many journos were found guilty of phone hacking in the end and got jail time.

    True enough, although the defences requires a lot of weaselling excuses and justifications so far, which is dodgy even if it is not illegal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Preposterous, of course.

    You don't get to where Trump is by being a complete fool, no matter how charismatic you are or how bad your opponent, even if he is clearly misinformed on a whole bunch of things, so I guess he's just throwing out red meat for his supporters, or why else ask if it was legal over twitter rather than, say, counsel?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
    A simple majority will do - a government can not be bound by its predecessors.

    But the Government does need to first repeal the FTPA, which will require some dedicated effort.

    Other wise yes a (Frankly unahcievable) 2/3 majority is needed.
    The FTPA should remain.

    A general election should not be called at the whim of the PM for their own political advantage.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    JackW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
    A simple majority will do - a government can not be bound by its predecessors.

    But the Government does need to first repeal the FTPA, which will require some dedicated effort.

    Other wise yes a (Frankly unahcievable) 2/3 majority is needed.
    The FTPA should remain.

    A general election should not be called at the whim of the PM for their own political advantage.
    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    This reminds me of the happy days of Summer 2010.

    'General Election by October'

    'Won't last beyond Spring 2011'

    'Cameron rode a horse!'

    'Osborne cried at a funeral!'

    May will be Prime Minister in May 2020. And also in June 2020.

    But these expenses revelations must place a question mark over Osborne's return to the Front Bench.....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,730
    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The other thing with cricks investigation is that in many seats he has made shall we say a huge leap of "logic" to be able to claim Tories exceeded spending, whereby he decided all of certain spending should 100% be claimed as local not national or a bit of both.

    It is one thing crick making these claims, making it stand up in court is quite another eg how many journos were found guilty of phone hacking in the end and got jail time.

    True enough, although the defences requires a lot of weaselling excuses and justifications so far, which is dodgy even if it is not illegal.
    If the authorities weren't able/willing to prosecute Lutfur Rahman, I'd be surprised if they did so here.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    kle4 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The problem for Mrs May is that she can't pin this on the ancien régime given how much her Chief of Staff is implicated in all of this.

    Nice try.

    The problem for the Cameroons is they can't blame shift given how long and how often they have told us how brilliant Dave and George were on winning seats.
    The Cameroons having problems doesn't matter because they are not in situ, so it doesn't work as a distraction.
    But any re-habilitation of Osborne has surely been put off?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,783
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to ...
    I wish I had a penny for every time Trump had done things he would have to be insane to do.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Stark_Dawning said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
    Obviously I do not know how much truth is in such claims, but is Trump really as credulous as he sometimes seems? He cannot be, surely? Because he acts like he always believes the last thing he sees or hears, even where some on the right think it is nuts.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,783
    Stark_Dawning said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
    Surely you're not suggesting that Breitbart would report anything but God's honest truth? :-)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,410
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    I think there's a ton of method in his madness. He didn't get to where he is today by making allegations founded on proof.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    On topic. - If maximum expense limits have been exceeded, then the Electoral Commission should impose fines on those found guilty. I doubt the electoral results in the six unnamed constituencies will be overturned however, the whole issue will be treated just as with the Lib Dems and their 20K maximum fine. - Not that we know much of the who, what ands where’s.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The other thing with cricks investigation is that in many seats he has made shall we say a huge leap of "logic" to be able to claim Tories exceeded spending, whereby he decided all of certain spending should 100% be claimed as local not national or a bit of both.

    It is one thing crick making these claims, making it stand up in court is quite another eg how many journos were found guilty of phone hacking in the end and got jail time.

    True enough, although the defences requires a lot of weaselling excuses and justifications so far, which is dodgy even if it is not illegal.
    If the authorities weren't able/willing to prosecute Lutfur Rahman, I'd be surprised if they did so here.
    Maybe that will embolden them this time. But perhaps not. I recall the judgement in that one essentially lambasting the authorities for leaving it to private citizens to bring the case.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    JackW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This could be the lifeline we Remainers have been yearning for - Tories lose their majority and parliament scuppers Brexit with a spoiling motion. Well done Michael Crick! Well done Channel 4! The plebs thought they had the pro-European liberal elite bested, but we were only biding our time.

    Huge amounts of ifs there and if may loses her majority you don't think she will go for a GE...Given she is only 14 points ahead.
    If she loses her majority she can't orchestrate an early election.
    Don't you need 2/3 to vote to call an early election? Having a slim majority or not wouldn't factor into that would it, they still need Labour to play ball? And the more convoluted vote of no confidence route would be on the table still, if still problematic for different reasons?
    A simple majority will do - a government can not be bound by its predecessors.

    But the Government does need to first repeal the FTPA, which will require some dedicated effort.

    Other wise yes a (Frankly unahcievable) 2/3 majority is needed.
    The FTPA should remain.

    A general election should not be called at the whim of the PM for their own political advantage.
    Jack, I've heard it from the horse's (Party chair)'s mouth himself at a private event - there will be no early election.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,990
    One of the seats which has been highlighted is Thanet South where the Tories beat off a challenge by UKIP’s Nigel Farage

    If there is a by-election in Thanet South, the ideal Con candidate would be Douglas Carswell.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
    But TM cannot call an election like that. There would have to be a parliamentary vote - and doubtless some notice of that would have to be given.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    justin124 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
    But TM cannot call an election like that. There would have to be a parliamentary vote - and doubtless some notice of that would have to be given.
    Yes, I appreciate that - my hypothetical was a hypothetical.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
    Before 2010 "partisan considerations" were never left aside when the timing of the general election was determined by the PM. Now If an electorate hands a government a difficult hand then so be it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,410
    SimonStClare said:

    On topic. - If maximum expense limits have been exceeded, then the Electoral Commission should impose fines on those found guilty. I doubt the electoral results in the six unnamed constituencies will be overturned however, the whole issue will be treated just as with the Lib Dems and their 20K maximum fine. - Not that we know much of the who, what ands where’s.

    I understand the Representation of the People Act to be very prescriptive. If an MP is found to have been elected improperly he is barred from public office for a period, so there will necessarily be a new election where be won't be allowed to stand.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Stark_Dawning said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
    Obama seeking to eavesdrop on an opposition’s Presidential campaign must surely go against ever rule there is. Explosive stuff, if true.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    Jack, I've heard it from the horse's (Party chair)'s mouth himself at a private event - there will be no early election.

    Let's hope the PM doesn't opt for a stewards enquiry on that notion.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    david_herdson said:

    One of the seats which has been highlighted is Thanet South where the Tories beat off a challenge by UKIP’s Nigel Farage

    If there is a by-election in Thanet South, the ideal Con candidate would be Douglas Carswell.

    Chortle .... :smiley:
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited March 2017
    JackW said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
    Before 2010 "partisan considerations" were never left aside when the timing of the general election was determined by the PM. Now If an electorate hands a government a difficult hand then so be it.
    Well of course they aren't, but there are times when they can coincide with what is also the best outcome for the country.

    The FTPA was always vulnerable to repeal by a simple majority, and some clever legal bod pointed out the other day that it can also be leapfrogged by a "Notwithstanding the FTPA, let's just this once have an election in 2017" Act also passed by simple majority.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    JackW said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
    Before 2010 "partisan considerations" were never left aside when the timing of the general election was determined by the PM. Now If an electorate hands a government a difficult hand then so be it.
    TM holds all the cards at the moment.The only problem she could have would be 30 or so remain Tory MPs flexing their muscles.However they do not seem to be any bastards as Major had just some nice MPs making debating points to the media .
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,146
    kle4 said:

    All parties get up to shady election expenses stuff, or so it seems, but the Tories seem to have been particularly egregious if this is true. It would be worrisome if they escaped punishment (should they be guilty) on the basis that it is so many it would cause too much of a problem.

    Have the Conservatives been particularly egregious or has Michael Crick's investigation focussed on the Conservatives?

    Surely before taking action that would alter the outcome of the GE, all constituencies must be vetted with equal rigour and the results made public so we can all verify there has been no political bias?

    Only after that will we know whether none/some/many/all MPs are in situ fraudulently.

    The knock-on effects are not trivial, after all. If the Conservatives hadn't won a majority, there would have been no EU referendum; but as it is, the EU now knows how many people in the UK are not at all happy with the Grand Project. Would the EU be willing to pretend the referendum never happened?

    Good afternoon, everybody.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    JackW said:

    kle4 said:

    It seemed a decent act to me, for all it as crafted at the least in part for narrow political intent. Some seem really exercised about it, but I'm yet to be convinced it is so bad it requires repeal.

    Quite so.

    The origin of the FTPA was to ensure the long term viability of the Coaltion but like much of our constitution it will prove to have longer term unintended but fortuitous consequences.

    And some less desirable ones. E.g. if T May loses her 6 seats and Corbyn stays in post, the next three years will look like a lame duck race, or whatever the opposite is of irresistible force meeting immovable obstacle. It might be thought, partisan considerations left entirely aside, that a snap election giving a workable majority was the best thing for the body politic.

    It would be a cool double to serve Art 50 notice and call a GE on the same day.
    Before 2010 "partisan considerations" were never left aside when the timing of the general election was determined by the PM. Now If an electorate hands a government a difficult hand then so be it.
    Well of course they aren't, but there are times when they can coincide with what is also the best outcome for the country.

    The FTPA was always vulnerable to repeal by a simple majority, and some clever legal bod pointed out the other day that it can also be leapfrogged by a "Notwithstanding the FTPA, let's just this once have an election in 2017" Act also passed by simple majority.
    Governments will always decide that their return to government, with an increased majority, is the "best outcome for the country".

    Many liberal democracies seem to struggle on without recourse to the manipulation of election timing by a Prime Minister or President and the FTPA should now be woven seamlessly into the fabric of our politics.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,410
    edited March 2017
    FF43 said:

    SimonStClare said:

    On topic. - If maximum expense limits have been exceeded, then the Electoral Commission should impose fines on those found guilty. I doubt the electoral results in the six unnamed constituencies will be overturned however, the whole issue will be treated just as with the Lib Dems and their 20K maximum fine. - Not that we know much of the who, what ands where’s.

    I understand the Representation of the People Act to be very prescriptive. If an MP is found to have been elected improperly he is barred from public office for a period, so there will necessarily be a new election where be won't be allowed to stand.
    They will want to make sure any misdemeanor is pinned on the party or the agent, and not the MP. The party would get a fine; the agent would be barred from acting I the future, but that doesn't matter. If the MP is found to be responsible he will have to resign and a new election will be called
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    All parties get up to shady election expenses stuff, or so it seems, but the Tories seem to have been particularly egregious if this is true. It would be worrisome if they escaped punishment (should they be guilty) on the basis that it is so many it would cause too much of a problem.

    Have the Conservatives been particularly egregious or has Michael Crick's investigation focussed on the Conservatives?

    Surely before taking action that would alter the outcome of the GE, all constituencies must be vetted with equal rigour and the results made public so we can all verify there has been no political bias?

    Only after that will we know whether none/some/many/all MPs are in situ fraudulently.

    The knock-on effects are not trivial, after all. If the Conservatives hadn't won a majority, there would have been no EU referendum; but as it is, the EU now knows how many people in the UK are not at all happy with the Grand Project. Would the EU be willing to pretend the referendum never happened?

    Good afternoon, everybody.
    I suspect that the Referendum would still have happened had the Tories fallen a few seats short of a majority in 2015. There would probably be at least 10 Labour MPs who would have supported it - plus the DUP.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Yorkcity said:

    TM holds all the cards at the moment.The only problem she could have would be 30 or so remain Tory MPs flexing their muscles.However they do not seem to be any bastards as Major had just some nice MPs making debating points to the media .

    The PM's reticence is most likely caused by the ace up her sleeve - One Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    CarlottaVance said:

    Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda.

    So telling them they are playing games with people's lives is respectful? I'd hate to see Theresa May deliberately being offensive.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,783
    SimonStClare said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
    Obama seeking to eavesdrop on an opposition’s Presidential campaign must surely go against ever rule there is. Explosive stuff, if true.
    As you can see, the claim is that there was authorised tapping. According to the Washington Post, that would require a finding by a federal judge that the person concerned "had committed a crime or was an agent of a foreign power." I can't help wondering whether Trump appreciates that.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    SimonStClare said:

    On topic. - If maximum expense limits have been exceeded, then the Electoral Commission should impose fines on those found guilty. I doubt the electoral results in the six unnamed constituencies will be overturned however, the whole issue will be treated just as with the Lib Dems and their 20K maximum fine. - Not that we know much of the who, what ands where’s.

    I understand the Representation of the People Act to be very prescriptive. If an MP is found to have been elected improperly he is barred from public office for a period, so there will necessarily be a new election where be won't be allowed to stand.
    They will want to make sure any misdemeanor is pinned on the party or the agent, and not the MP. The party would get a fine; the agent would be barred from acting I the future, but that doesn't matter. If the MP is found to be responsible he will have to resign and a new election will be called
    Hardly an expert on the subject, but I’m not sure the Representation of the People Act applies in this case, this looks like a simple case of electoral funding irregularities rather than what Phil Woolas did, to be stripped of his MP status.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    TM holds all the cards at the moment.The only problem she could have would be 30 or so remain Tory MPs flexing their muscles.However they do not seem to be any bastards as Major had just some nice MPs making debating points to the media .

    The PM's reticence is most likely caused by the ace up her sleeve - One Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.

    Agreed however opposition takes many forms and if you never play the ace you might as well have the two of spades.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Yorkcity said:

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    TM holds all the cards at the moment.The only problem she could have would be 30 or so remain Tory MPs flexing their muscles.However they do not seem to be any bastards as Major had just some nice MPs making debating points to the media .

    The PM's reticence is most likely caused by the ace up her sleeve - One Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.

    Agreed however opposition takes many forms and if you never play the ace you might as well have the two of spades.
    The two of spades trumps a joker every time .... :smile:
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The problem for Mrs May is that she can't pin this on the ancien régime given how much her Chief of Staff is implicated in all of this.

    Haha. Good try Mr Eagles.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    JackW said:

    Yorkcity said:

    TM holds all the cards at the moment.The only problem she could have would be 30 or so remain Tory MPs flexing their muscles.However they do not seem to be any bastards as Major had just some nice MPs making debating points to the media .

    The PM's reticence is most likely caused by the ace up her sleeve - One Rt Hon Jeremy Bernard Corbyn MP.

    Agreed however opposition takes many forms and if you never play the ace you might as well have the two of spades.
    The two of spades trumps a joker every time .... :smile:
    Not if you never use it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,373
    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda.

    So telling them they are playing games with people's lives is respectful? I'd hate to see Theresa May deliberately being offensive.
    David 'The Martyr' Mundell obviously hasn't received the mutual respect memo.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/837967637049184257
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Pulpstar said:

    I've laid Juppe back to pretty much zero this morning. Hoping for Fillon to be a stubborn old goat tommorow at the Troc.

    Ditto. I've also backed Fillon more on the basis that he will shorten again once the Juppgasm subsides....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    South African president Jacob Zuma has called on lawmakers to help seize white-owned land without compensation - to establish 'pre-colonial' patterns.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4281088/Zuma-wants-land-owned-white-occupiers-taken.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    South African president Jacob Zuma has called on lawmakers to help seize white-owned land without compensation - to establish 'pre-colonial' patterns.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4281088/Zuma-wants-land-owned-white-occupiers-taken.html

    Sell the rand lol
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    edited March 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    Mortimer said:

    Ditto. I've also backed Fillon more on the basis that he will shorten again once the Juppgasm subsides....

    Banking on an Alain slide?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    edited March 2017
    Mortimer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I've laid Juppe back to pretty much zero this morning. Hoping for Fillon to be a stubborn old goat tommorow at the Troc.

    Ditto. I've also backed Fillon more on the basis that he will shorten again once the Juppgasm subsides....
    Heh If Juppe does win it'll be tremendous for my Betfair account ( Only £226 allowance remaining for the premium charge), less good for my Hills account..
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,122
    I know it's off topic but the e petition to replace the unelected HOL is within 500 votes of 100,000 requiring it to be considered by the HOC
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/838047816966623233
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I know it's off topic but the e petition to replace the unelected HOL is within 500 votes of 100,000 requiring it to be considered by the HOC

    I know the petition is gaining traction due to the Brexit stuff, but quite aside from that I believe it should be replaced with an elected body. Perhaps PR in thirds, or some such - like the US senate. Its a relic.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,122
    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
    That job is for Ruth Davidson complimented by Theresa May
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    Ouch!

    https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/838049341654847488
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,241
    Double ouch!

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/838049886331351040
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,122
    Pulpstar said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I know it's off topic but the e petition to replace the unelected HOL is within 500 votes of 100,000 requiring it to be considered by the HOC

    I know the petition is gaining traction due to the Brexit stuff, but quite aside from that I believe it should be replaced with an elected body. Perhaps PR in thirds, or some such - like the US senate. Its a relic.
    It has to be overhauled and is likely to feature in the 2020 manifestos. While Brexit may have made it's reform more likely that in itself is a good thing
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    All parties get up to shady election expenses stuff, or so it seems, but the Tories seem to have been particularly egregious if this is true. It would be worrisome if they escaped punishment (should they be guilty) on the basis that it is so many it would cause too much of a problem.

    Have the Conservatives been particularly egregious or has Michael Crick's investigation focussed on the Conservatives?

    Surely before taking action that would alter the outcome of the GE, all constituencies must be vetted with equal rigour and the results made public so we can all verify there has been no political bias?

    Only after that will we know whether none/some/many/all MPs are in situ fraudulently.

    The knock-on effects are not trivial, after all. If the Conservatives hadn't won a majority, there would have been no EU referendum; but as it is, the EU now knows how many people in the UK are not at all happy with the Grand Project. Would the EU be willing to pretend the referendum never happened?

    Good afternoon, everybody.
    What you are saying is roughly this: there can be no investigation unless an equivalent number of opposition constituencies are investigated as well.

    What stops you finding those constituencies ? Usually only the Tories can afford such hotel bills.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,373
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
    That job is for Ruth Davidson complimented by Theresa May
    What's your prediction for the Scottish council elections, the ones that Tessy wants to be a poll on whether there should be an Indy ref II?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
    That job is for Ruth Davidson complimented by Theresa May
    What's your prediction for the Scottish council elections, the ones that Tessy wants to be a poll on whether there should be an Indy ref II?
    Sanctimony much?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SimonStClare said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
    Obama seeking to eavesdrop on an opposition’s Presidential campaign must surely go against ever rule there is. Explosive stuff, if true.
    What utter shite ! It is perfectly natural to eavesdrop on a KGB agent.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
    That job is for Ruth Davidson complimented by Theresa May
    Good point .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,290
    surbiton said:

    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    All parties get up to shady election expenses stuff, or so it seems, but the Tories seem to have been particularly egregious if this is true. It would be worrisome if they escaped punishment (should they be guilty) on the basis that it is so many it would cause too much of a problem.

    Have the Conservatives been particularly egregious or has Michael Crick's investigation focussed on the Conservatives?

    Surely before taking action that would alter the outcome of the GE, all constituencies must be vetted with equal rigour and the results made public so we can all verify there has been no political bias?

    Only after that will we know whether none/some/many/all MPs are in situ fraudulently.

    The knock-on effects are not trivial, after all. If the Conservatives hadn't won a majority, there would have been no EU referendum; but as it is, the EU now knows how many people in the UK are not at all happy with the Grand Project. Would the EU be willing to pretend the referendum never happened?

    Good afternoon, everybody.
    What you are saying is roughly this: there can be no investigation unless an equivalent number of opposition constituencies are investigated as well.

    What stops you finding those constituencies ? Usually only the Tories can afford such hotel bills.
    From a LibDem perspective, I can assure you that when we travel to help other constituency campaigns our members are willing to pay their own expenses. We don't expect our party to lay on free coach transport and free bed and board, as Tory HQ provided to its activists. The question is how on Earth the Tories thought that spending lots of money transporting activists to Thanet or Torbay, or wherever, and accommodating and feeding them while they were there, could possibly be passed off as "national" campaign expenditure?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,373
    Mortimer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
    That job is for Ruth Davidson complimented by Theresa May
    What's your prediction for the Scottish council elections, the ones that Tessy wants to be a poll on whether there should be an Indy ref II?
    Sanctimony much?
    Inability to write something coherent much?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Mortimer said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Yorkcity said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Daisley:

    Mrs May’s speech was mostly boilerplate but parse a word here and a clause there and you have the makings of a fresh approach to devolution. Mr Cameron’s respect agenda — which involved him being respectful to the SNP and them respectfully telling him to b****r off — has been replaced by a mutual respect agenda. Downing Street would seek to work with the devolved administration but the good of the Union, not appeasement of the Nationalists, would be the priority.

    The Prime Minister was relaxed, even allowing herself the odd smile. She looks less apprehensive when speaking in Scotland than her old boss did; her shoulders are less hunched, her words less halted by fear of saying the wrong thing. Every few months, Mr Cameron would come north to deliver a ‘defence’ of the Union and every time it would fall flat. By seeking to defend the United Kingdom, he accepted that it was on trial. Mrs May celebrated our shared values and prosecuted a strong case against separatism.

    She gets what Mr Cameron seemed not to: Scotland is her country too, and she needn’t be afraid to talk about it.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/04/theresa-mays-hymn-to-unity-was-heartfelt-and-robust/

    Cameron went to Scotland pleaded and begged that the Scottish people save the Union they did .He was successful in that regard.
    He was - but I'm not sure he connected in the same way May does:

    The hall loved it. Conservative conferences are a tale of two Tories. The mini-Mogg — suit from John Lewis, politics from John Redwood — and the No-Nonsense Auntie: A doughty, reliable type who knocks the doors, bakes the scones, and handbags Central Office when it gets too carried away with itself. The libertarian mini-Moggs set aside their iffiness about collectivism to rah-rah the Prime Minister’s words while the Aunties, terribly proud to be British but one doesn’t go on about it, thundered in applause.
    May certainly connects better with the Unionists and Conservatives.However I have my doubts she can convince the uncommited who might switch and get Scottish Independence over the 50%.
    That job is for Ruth Davidson complimented by Theresa May
    What's your prediction for the Scottish council elections, the ones that Tessy wants to be a poll on whether there should be an Indy ref II?
    Sanctimony much?
    Inability to write something coherent much?
    Whatever happened to Dair? He was lots of fun. Especially when pontificating on VAT...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,774
    Chris said:

    SimonStClare said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Chris said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39167110

    If this is true, Obama's looking at prison time. An enormous scandal.
    What do you mean - IF it's true?

    Surely you're not suggesting that Donald Trump would tweet anything but God's honest truth? :-)
    Trump would have to be insane to issue that explosive tweet unless he had absolute proof. I don't believe he's insane.
    Sounds as if Trump's proof is an article on Breitbart:

    the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
    Obama seeking to eavesdrop on an opposition’s Presidential campaign must surely go against ever rule there is. Explosive stuff, if true.
    As you can see, the claim is that there was authorised tapping. According to the Washington Post, that would require a finding by a federal judge that the person concerned "had committed a crime or was an agent of a foreign power." I can't help wondering whether Trump appreciates that.

    The US president has the power to telease all relevant info. Presumably Trump will now do that - including what persuaded a judge to issue any order there might have been. Let's see if he does.

This discussion has been closed.