Shame it was Rory who had to take a live TV bullet. I have high hopes for the young lad.
I'm sure he's been tipped up a few times for leadership, but I can't see it myself.
Not leadership, but he is wasted not having some real input in areas of his expertise e.g Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...cos I am sure government doesn't spend any time on those places....
No matter what comes of any police investigations here, what's absolutely certain is that the Electoral Commission rules and guidance on election spending need to be updated well in advance of the next GE. Certain activities around the 'battle busses' in particular need to be clearly either allowed or banned.
Macron getting more of Fillon's support than Le Pen now in r2 - looks good for him.
Yes it does. Difficult to see how Fillon makes it to R2 from here. Most people have made up their mind about the financial scandal and if that has not changed over the past 7 weeks since it first hit the news, it is difficult to see how it will change over the coming 6 weeks, especially as he now definitely faces charges.
I suppose the only concern that Macron backers have is that a similar scandal will emerge about him.
Le Pen.. well her support is solid and it is difficult to imagine anything shaking that support in any meaningful way. More likely, if anything, that an event occurs to bolster her chances a little, rather than any further accusations against her having an opposite effect.
Shame it was Rory who had to take a live TV bullet. I have high hopes for the young lad.
I'm sure he's been tipped up a few times for leadership, but I can't see it myself.
Not leadership, but he is wasted not having some real input in areas of his expertise e.g Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...cos I am sure government doesn't spend any time on those places....
Hmm Yes I think Foreign/Defence is an area he may be able to head to in time. He's always looked a bit well lightweight to me - though no doubt he can provide real input to defense in particular.
The tables from the latest YouGov are out. Basically suggests that the unusually low Ukip figure (9%) may well be down to greater migration of voters to the Tories - up from a fifth of the 2015 Ukip more typical of the series to a third in this latest poll. This seems plausible, but the sub-sample of 2015 Ukip voters is small so it might turn out to be noise. Something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks, especially once A50 happens.
In other totally unsurprising news, May leads Corbyn 48:14 on the best PM question, and 67:6 amongst the over 65s, and there's no meaningful movement on the Brexit right or wrong question for the umpteenth month in a row.
They also asked various questions about Sindy Mk 2, including to English and Welsh respondents only. When asking if English and Welsh respondents supported or opposed Scottish independence, they found that the total proportion opposed had declined from two-thirds in September 2014 to a half now.
Not a huge surprise. Peak Scottish whingemongering is pretty corrosive...
And there'll be oceans of it for the Union to drown in over the next couple of years. But that was always the Scots Nats' back-up plan. Plan A: convince your own people that independence is a good idea. If that fails, plan B: jump up and down and scream about how hard done by you are until the rest of the country either gives up on Scotland, or actively wills it gone.
There's a relief! Last YouGov's Scottish Labour Surge KLAXON has been cancelled:
Con: 31 Lab: 18 SNP: 37
The Yougov subsamples were the place the SNP surge started to show in 2014.
Roughly a quarter of SNP voters are unionists based on several pollsters findings. If they do not like the idea of another referendum the SNP will start to drift downwards.
The number in both subsamples and full polls is worth keeping an eye on.
Maybe Sturgeon can use a pithy line for that. How about: "Make England grate again".
LOL. This cannot be said publicly, of course, but it's doubtless a large part of what they're setting out to achieve.
I was briefly worried when the second referendum campaign kicked off in earnest that this might be the start of an eternal neverendum carousel: Scotland votes to stay in UK, Scotland elects Nationalist Parliament, Nationalist Parliament demands yet another referendum, repeat until dead. But I'm feeling somewhat more optimistic now. Just so long as May refuses to let the SNP have another referendum until after we've dealt with Brexit - one constitutional question at a time, please - then after that it's not such a big problem as it's made out. I see it working one of three ways:
1. Available evidence post-Brexit suggests most Scots still don't want a referendum. In that case, May tells Sturgeon to go and secure another pro-independence majority at Holyrood in 2021. Can kicked down road, and SNP/Green success by no means certain.
2. Available evidence suggests most Scots want a referendum. In that case, make limited interventions and leave Ruth Davidson to do the hard graft. Then:
(a) If she wins, the Scots Tories have saved the Union, they cement their position as the dominant anti-SNP force, Scottish Conservative MPs begin to return to Westminster in strength, Sturgeon is finished and the Nationalist movement is badly set back. Its strength would likely be permanently reduced, a la Quebec, by inability to deliver. Even if it wasn't, the Scottish populace would be exhausted and the UK Government in an excellent position to refuse a third referendum for at least the next twenty years.
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
No matter what comes of any police investigations here, what's absolutely certain is that the Electoral Commission rules and guidance on election spending need to be updated well in advance of the next GE. Certain activities around the 'battle busses' in particular need to be clearly either allowed or banned.
As soon as rules are revised, and limits reviewed, groups will be looking at new ways to get round them.
Could this be Theresa's excuse to have a general election?
What excuse will she use ? We tried and won the last GE by fraud , been caught out so let;s have another go .
Nope.
She could say the last PM and his staff were dodgy so we need a new House Of Commons that the public can have confidence in.
Forgive the rudeness, but who would believe that bollocks? Is she to say she had nothing to do with the last leadership, or that she had no clue what was going on?
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
Thought they would show the late races on ITV4.Do they have all the rights or are they held by racing UK ?
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I never understand when BBC or ITV pay a load of dosh for a sporting event, then don't show the s##t out of it. Sky's approach now is to change one of their channels to be dedicated to whatever big event it is.
Given BBC and ITV have a numerous channels each, I never understand why they have to cut off coverage for some repeated shit, or do the hokay cokey of constantly shifting around channels, cough cough The Olympics.....I got RSI of the constant channel shifting bollocks of Rio.
German regulators told one bank talking to them about getting a German banking licence that while they were happy to have the jobs and tax, all the balance sheet risk needed to be booked in London. They didn't want it.
Financial stability is going to be a nightmare for both the EU and the UK if something sensible isn't agreed.
Well exactly, all this fuss about clearing, if we "win" and it stays then the BoE is on the hook for n number of EU institutions. Some control...
Works both ways. Regulators round the world have worked hard to try and iron out systemic shocks to the system: information sharing and equivalent / similar rules are part of that. Lose those and not only are regulators a bit more blind than they were before but they are also still on the hook if there's a problem affecting their country. Couple that with the proposed changes in the US and there are real concerns that we could - if no deal is done - end up unpicking or losing much of the good work done post the 07-08 financial crisis.
The anecdote above shows that while some European countries want the jobs and tax revenues they don't want the risks that come with financial sectors.
It's almost as if they are cherry picking.......
It's an issue which I think Ireland hasn't wholly considered in the IDA's rush to poach business.
No matter what comes of any police investigations here, what's absolutely certain is that the Electoral Commission rules and guidance on election spending need to be updated well in advance of the next GE. Certain activities around the 'battle busses' in particular need to be clearly either allowed or banned.
As soon as rules are revised, and limits reviewed, groups will be looking at new ways to get round them.
Of course, but clearly the last set of rules weren't fit for purpose. The fact that only Farage is really pushing the story is a strong hint that everyone is nervous about their own conduct being looked into too closely.
One of the issues I have been told is that there is just no expertise on election finances within the police. You are likely to have wildly different standards of investigation across the various police forces.
Newsnight last night was saying that the Tories are expecting a hefty fine, but that intent to commit voter fraud wasn't there (and it is a difficult burden to prove) so weren't expecting MP casualties from this. We'll see.
Could this be Theresa's excuse to have a general election?
What excuse will she use ? We tried and won the last GE by fraud , been caught out so let;s have another go .
Nope.
She could say the last PM and his staff were dodgy so we need a new House Of Commons that the public can have confidence in.
Forgive the rudeness, but who would believe that bollocks? Is she to say she had nothing to do with the last leadership, or that she had no clue what was going on?
Blaming the previous management is Standard Operating Procedure, surely?
No matter what comes of any police investigations here, what's absolutely certain is that the Electoral Commission rules and guidance on election spending need to be updated well in advance of the next GE. Certain activities around the 'battle busses' in particular need to be clearly either allowed or banned.
As soon as rules are revised, and limits reviewed, groups will be looking at new ways to get round them.
Of course, but clearly the last set of rules weren't fit for purpose. The fact that only Farage is really pushing the story is a strong hint that everyone is nervous about their own conduct being looked into too closely.
Reminds me a bit of phone hacking....in more ways than one.
Both have already been fined for mis-spending and I'm fairly sure that the complete and utter silence by mainstream labour voices on this is related to some twitching sphincters over similar buses. Labour students for one, pink women's bus for another.
Based on Smithson Junior's forecast above at this late stage, PP's odds of 8/11 on VVD winning the most seats looks like pretty fair value to me, but DYOR.
One of the issues I have been told is that there is just no expertise on election finances within the police. You are likely to have wildly different standards of investigation across the various police forces.
Newsnight last night was saying that the Tories are expecting a hefty fine, but that intent to commit voter fraud wasn't there (and it is a difficult burden to prove) so weren't expecting MP casualties from this. We'll see.
I believe they have to prove that the MP knew all the ins and out of any scheming and given that that there was underhand stuff going on, then signed off the returns they knew to be false.
Given these battle buses shifted people around all over the place, often feeding them and putting them up in hotels outside of the seat the volunteers had been campaigning in, it seems very difficult to work out exactly how much of what goes where.
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I never understand when BBC or ITV pay a load of dosh for a sporting event, then don't show the s##t out of it. Sky's approach now is to change one of their channels to be dedicated to whatever big event it is.
Given BBC and ITV have a numerous channels each, I never understand why they have to cut off coverage for some repeated shit, or do the hokay cokey of constantly shifting around channels, cough cough The Olympics.....I got RSI of the constant channel shifting bollocks of Rio.
Olympics was a right pain to watch, and an even bigger pain to set up a PVR to record a certain event.
Setting aside the controversy of the business model, Sky Sports F1 is a broadcasting showcase on how to cover an event from start to finish over several days. They even allow the producers a lot of leeway with the timing of the ad breaks.
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I agree, especially when one considers that having sunk all the money in setting up the outside broadcast for the 4 day festival, the additional cost of staying on air for an extra 30 minutes per day is marginal to say the least, especially when one takes into account the additional advertising revenue earned when comparing the two programmes. Heads should roll!
One of the issues I have been told is that there is just no expertise on election finances within the police. You are likely to have wildly different standards of investigation across the various police forces.
Newsnight last night was saying that the Tories are expecting a hefty fine, but that intent to commit voter fraud wasn't there (and it is a difficult burden to prove) so weren't expecting MP casualties from this. We'll see.
To be honest, I'm not so confident.
The one I'm really concerned about is Thanet South, I was told that the Tories overspent by £200,000 in that seat.
Can you unknowingly overspend by £200k?
Plus the Tory defence a few months ago was 'Well UKIP overspent by even more in Thanet South'
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I agree, especially when one considers that having sunk all the money in setting up the outside broadcast for the 4 day festival, the additional cost of staying on air for an extra 30 minutes per day is marginal to say the least, especially when one takes into account the additional advertising revenue earned when comparing the two programmes. Heads should roll!
Google is using a 10,000-strong army of independent contractors to flag "offensive or upsetting" content, in order to ensure that queries like "did the Holocaust happen" don't push users to misinformation, propaganda and hate speech.
Is anyone able to provide details please of the Dutch GE exit poll, due out at 8.01pm, just in case the odd bookie might then still have a "most seats" market still open?
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I never understand when BBC or ITV pay a load of dosh for a sporting event, then don't show the s##t out of it. Sky's approach now is to change one of their channels to be dedicated to whatever big event it is.
Given BBC and ITV have a numerous channels each, I never understand why they have to cut off coverage for some repeated shit, or do the hokay cokey of constantly shifting around channels, cough cough The Olympics.....I got RSI of the constant channel shifting bollocks of Rio.
Olympics was a right pain to watch, and an even bigger pain to set up a PVR to record a certain event.
Setting aside the controversy of the business model, Sky Sports F1 is a broadcasting showcase on how to cover an event from start to finish over several days. They even allow the producers a lot of leeway with the timing of the ad breaks.
The channel hopping between BBC1 & 2 for major sporting events is always a bit odd, there has to be a reason for it, I naively assumed the rights to the programmes had already been sold and contractually had to be aired at those times.
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I agree, especially when one considers that having sunk all the money in setting up the outside broadcast for the 4 day festival, the additional cost of staying on air for an extra 30 minutes per day is marginal to say the least, especially when one takes into account the additional advertising revenue earned when comparing the two programmes. Heads should roll!
They don't have the rights.
Fair enough, I didn't know that - I thought it sounded crazy.
Love the way ITV get the rights to Cheltenham then can't even have the good grace to show it all, instead screening another episode of "The Chase", which has had a thousand episodes since 2009............
I never understand when BBC or ITV pay a load of dosh for a sporting event, then don't show the s##t out of it. Sky's approach now is to change one of their channels to be dedicated to whatever big event it is.
Given BBC and ITV have a numerous channels each, I never understand why they have to cut off coverage for some repeated shit, or do the hokay cokey of constantly shifting around channels, cough cough The Olympics.....I got RSI of the constant channel shifting bollocks of Rio.
Olympics was a right pain to watch, and an even bigger pain to set up a PVR to record a certain event.
Setting aside the controversy of the business model, Sky Sports F1 is a broadcasting showcase on how to cover an event from start to finish over several days. They even allow the producers a lot of leeway with the timing of the ad breaks.
The channel hopping between BBC1 & 2 for major sporting events is always a bit odd, there has to be a reason for it, I naively assumed the rights to the programmes had already been sold and contractually had to be aired at those times.
I think there are certain regular programmes in the daytime schedule that they avoid moving if possible, due to large audiences who complain very loudly if 'their' show isn't on because racing/cricket/snooker/tennis/major news etc.
If Britain would struggle to choose its own independence, then how on earth will Scotland, with much less clout?
"With the UK shouting 'tally-ho' " indeed! Deirdre Brock is blowing a racist dogwhistle. This quote shows how she thinks: buzzphrases, racism, and saying nationalist things without arguing for them. I wonder what she did between acting a bit part in Home and Away in 1990 and becoming a local councillor in 2007.
Interesting polling in France: Macron's programme is rated as the most popular, and is more popular than Macron as a candiditate, with Le Pen's figures being the reverse - she is more popular than her policies. Goes against received wisdom I would have thought.
I see Dutch polls close at 8 UK time (and Robert Smithson's post is presumably a prediction, not an exit poll?). What's the best source of news? I've found this one, in Dutch but subtitled in English:
I see Dutch polls close at 8 UK time (and Robert Smithson's post is presumably a prediction, not an exit poll?). What's the best source of news? I've found this one, in Dutch but subtitled in English:
I see Dutch polls close at 8 UK time (and Robert Smithson's post is presumably a prediction, not an exit poll?). What's the best source of news? I've found this one, in Dutch but subtitled in English:
A fair percentage of the Labour transfers they achieved post 2014 were on the understanding that they would stand up for Scotland within the UK.
In today's YG - 32% of SNP supporters do not support Indy. That's the highest of the subsamples across a number of pollsters.
I think they may just have jumped the shark.
I'm just fed up of the whole business. I'm merely feeling hopeful now that the Scottish stay-or-go question has a finite shelf-life: if they go they go, if they stay then we should at the very least get a prolonged period free of the argument.
This is not the same as my saying that the UK is secure, or can be secured, say for another hundred years. Britain may well be done for anyway. We might be able to stabilise things with root and branch reform - a constitution setting out a federal system, which would fix the end point of devolution and create a way to share power acceptable to all four parts of the UK. But this country is used to moving on by evolution rather than revolution, and besides the political forces mitigating against such an outcome are probably too great.
Having a First Minister of England and a Prime Minister or the UK at the same time suffers from what I call the "big train set" problem: no leader of a party that can aspire to win a majority in England wants that kind of devolution, because they want to be able to run the domestic agenda, and control whatever is left to the centre - say the borders, pensions, security and intelligence, defence, trade and foreign affairs - at the same time. One or the other's not good enough for them. They want to play with the whole train set, not share with somebody else.
The big train set problem derails the prospects of federalism. That in turn leaves us with an asymmetric and unstable system of competing parliaments, which is always going to be one nationalist spasm from collapse.
With this DECC appeal surely with all the debate about the aid budget this is a golden opportunity for the government to make a substantial donation rather than ask the British public?
Interesting polling in France: Macron's programme is rated as the most popular, and is more popular than Macron as a candiditate, with Le Pen's figures being the reverse - she is more popular than her policies. Goes against received wisdom I would have thought.
Not entirely sure how much power that a President has to pursue his or her policies in France without having the MP's to back it up.
So not sure if popularity of the candidate is more influential than the popularity of their policies.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of French politics could enlighten me.
A fair percentage of the Labour transfers they achieved post 2014 were on the understanding that they would stand up for Scotland within the UK.
In today's YG - 32% of SNP supporters do not support Indy. That's the highest of the subsamples across a number of pollsters.
I think they may just have jumped the shark.
I'm just fed up of the whole business. I'm merely feeling hopeful now that the Scottish stay-or-go question has a finite shelf-life: if they go they go, if they stay then we should at the very least get a prolonged period free of the argument.
This is not the same as my saying that the UK is secure, or can be secured, say for another hundred years. Britain may well be done for anyway. We might be able to stabilise things with root and branch reform - a constitution setting out a federal system, which would fix the end point of devolution and create a way to share power acceptable to all four parts of the UK. But this country is used to moving on by evolution rather than revolution, and besides the political forces mitigating against such an outcome are probably too great.
Having a First Minister of England and a Prime Minister or the UK at the same time suffers from what I call the "big train set" problem: no leader of a party that can aspire to win a majority in England wants that kind of devolution, because they want to be able to run the domestic agenda, and control whatever is left to the centre - say the borders, pensions, security and intelligence, defence, trade and foreign affairs - at the same time. One or the other's not good enough for them. They want to play with the whole train set, not share with somebody else.
The big train set problem derails the prospects of federalism. That in turn leaves us with an asymmetric and unstable system of competing parliaments, which is always going to be one nationalist spasm from collapse.
The big train set problem could be solved by recreating Mercia, Wessex etc, and having a balanced federation. Really this should have been thought about 100 years ago, and failing that at least at the time the Scottish Parliament was reestablished.
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
Why did you cut off the last third of what I said? I wasn't hailing the survival of the Union - it may very well be finished - merely welcoming the joyous advent of the first shaft of light at the end of the tunnel.
Events of the next few years end one of two ways. Either Scotland goes, or the independence movement suffers a second defeat and is shoved back into its box, for a goodly while at least. Either way, we can look forward to an extended respite from the moaning. Good.
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
1) The Conservative party doesn't have many fiscal conservatives
2) Proper preparation involves more than thinking up party political point scoring
3) Vested interests which scream the loudest get protected the most
4) If a small, progressive, fair and popular tax rise can be stopped then national bankruptcy lies ahead
I am sure the central issue for Theresa May was that it broke the manifesto commitment.
Hammond was not politically switched on but think he will survive, but should have done better
But that implies May didn't read the budget of her own underling before approving it?
Either she didn't read it, when it should have been top of her in-tray - i.e incompetent or lazy
Or she did read it, didn't spot the NI rise / manifesto commitment issue, which suggests she doesn't even know what programme her government was elected on, and that she cannot be relied upon to proof anything before sending out.
Or she did read it, DID spot the conflict issue and figured she could handle the backlash - incorrectly believing her own hype that she was the next Lady T - and cracked at the first whisper of discontent. This is probably the most likely.
Finally, she did read it, did spot the conflict, and pressed ahead knowing there would be a backlash against Spreadsheet Phil - thereby weakening him as a potential rival and putting him in his place. This is also likely but not sure she is sufficiently machiavellian for that.
A classic document says, only when we do our tasks are we prepared. When we are prepared, there is no trouble.
There seems to have been ample time spent sharpening witticisms, less spent on the actual substance of the Budget.
Mr. Glenn, to have powers equal to Holyrood those kingdoms would require the ability to set income tax rates. It would institutionalise political division within England.
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
I do think they are quite stupid on this. It is very much a labour style policy especially as it is supported by the IFS and Resolution Foundation as a progressive tax.
It seems they have to oppose everything and are not intelligent enough to see that by opposing this they have closed off this tax rise by themselves.
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
More damaging to force Hammond into a U-turn?
that's far, far, FAR more damaging if they've initially supported the move.
A Labour MP by the name of Ian Wright is speaking in a way only a Tory could speak. This Labour opposition today is tainted by aligning with the Tories.
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
It was proposed by a Conservative.
Same argument used by Labour leaderships since Keir Hardie.
Same reason the Labour Party voted against Maastricht.
1) The Conservative party doesn't have many fiscal conservatives
2) Proper preparation involves more than thinking up party political point scoring
3) Vested interests which scream the loudest get protected the most
4) If a small, progressive, fair and popular tax rise can be stopped then national bankruptcy lies ahead
I am sure the central issue for Theresa May was that it broke the manifesto commitment.
Hammond was not politically switched on but think he will survive, but should have done better
But that implies May didn't read the budget of her own underling before approving it?
Either she didn't read it, when it should have been top of her in-tray - i.e incompetent or lazy
Or she did read it, didn't spot the NI rise / manifesto commitment issue, which suggests she doesn't even know what programme her government was elected on, and that she cannot be relied upon to proof anything before sending out.
Or she did read it, DID spot the conflict issue and figured she could handle the backlash - incorrectly believing her own hype that she was the next Lady T - and cracked at the first whisper of discontent. This is probably the most likely.
Finally, she did read it, did spot the conflict, and pressed ahead knowing there would be a backlash against Spreadsheet Phil - thereby weakening him as a potential rival and putting him in his place. This is also likely but not sure she is sufficiently machiavellian for that.
The cabinet as a whole were responsible when Hammond presented it and he wasn't checked. However the reports from the self employed are that they are pleased over the u turn.
We all make mistakes and it is only right to correct them. This u turn is obviously a gift to the opposition but paradoxically is unlikely to dent the conservatives with the public
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
I do think they are quite stupid on this. It is very much a labour style policy especially as it is supported by the IFS and Resolution Foundation as a progressive tax.
It seems they have to oppose everything and are not intelligent enough to see that by opposing this they have closed off this tax rise by themselves.
As I wrote, they are financially illiterate. It was a golden opportunity to embarrass the Prime Minister by supporting her.
Sky are saying that the CPS have to prove deliberate fraud to obtain a conviction.
Also the Electoral Commission are sending a report to the Conservatives next week.
This could involve all parties in one way or another and would point to ambiguous wording in the legislation.
We will see in due course how this pans out
And presumably it must be deliberate fraud by the MP personally?
As to lose their seat the MP personally would have to be convicted and sent to prison for at least a year (though in practice they would probably resign if given any prison sentence).
Sky are saying that the CPS have to prove deliberate fraud to obtain a conviction.
Also the Electoral Commission are sending a report to the Conservatives next week.
This could involve all parties in one way or another and would point to ambiguous wording in the legislation.
We will see in due course how this pans out
And presumably it must be deliberate fraud by the MP personally?
As to lose their seat the MP personally would have to be convicted and sent to prison for at least a year (though in practice they would probably resign if given any prison sentence).
So basically you are saying that any party can spend as much money as they can ?
I am not sure why Labour was against the NIC increase ? The current leadership is financially illiterate. With a little humour they could have "helped" the Chancellor.
I do think they are quite stupid on this. It is very much a labour style policy especially as it is supported by the IFS and Resolution Foundation as a progressive tax.
It seems they have to oppose everything and are not intelligent enough to see that by opposing this they have closed off this tax rise by themselves.
As I wrote, they are financially illiterate. It was a golden opportunity to embarrass the Prime Minister by supporting her.
Sky are saying that the CPS have to prove deliberate fraud to obtain a conviction.
Also the Electoral Commission are sending a report to the Conservatives next week.
This could involve all parties in one way or another and would point to ambiguous wording in the legislation.
We will see in due course how this pans out
And presumably it must be deliberate fraud by the MP personally?
As to lose their seat the MP personally would have to be convicted and sent to prison for at least a year (though in practice they would probably resign if given any prison sentence).
So basically you are saying that any party can spend as much money as they can ?
I am certain it is the ambiguity of the legislation. All parties used battle buses so expect this to become a story involving bad legislation rather than deliberate fraud by any party
The big train set problem could be solved by recreating Mercia, Wessex etc, and having a balanced federation. Really this should have been thought about 100 years ago, and failing that at least at the time the Scottish Parliament was reestablished.
Partitioning England into convenient, roughly Scotland-sized provinces, would never fly. It's a neat idea in theory; in practice, most of them would be artificial, and nobody wants eight, nine or ten separate governments each with a separate set of policies in most domestic areas and - more to the point - separate legal systems. And nor can you get away with creating these provinces but just giving them less authority than that enjoyed by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: if you don't have the same extent of devolution of power, or as near as makes no difference, to all the states in a federal system then the West Lothian Question is not answered satisfactorily.
Comments
Looks like Fillon is shedding a few more of his steadfast supporters after his indictment yesterday.
Today's ifop poll sees him drop to 18.5, 7 points now behind Macron and 8 points behind Le Pen .
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_15-03-2017.pdf
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Final-SDM-Indy-Ref-2-Tables-1c0d1h9-060317DWCH-1-10.pdf
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Final-Sunday-Post-60-Tables-2017-1c0d1h0-030317CPCH-1-28.pdf
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/186597/senior-conservative-urges-scrutiny-labour-liberal-democrat-snp-campaign-spending/
Are these just allegations of sharp practice?
Independent European nation.
Seriously?
If Britain would struggle to choose its own independence, then how on earth will Scotland, with much less clout?
She could say the last PM and his staff were dodgy so we need a new House Of Commons that the public can have confidence in.
Remember Mrs May has no love for the Posh Boys...
I suppose the only concern that Macron backers have is that a similar scandal will emerge about him.
Le Pen.. well her support is solid and it is difficult to imagine anything shaking that support in any meaningful way. More likely, if anything, that an event occurs to bolster her chances a little, rather than any further accusations against her having an opposite effect.
sorry malc shes a fuckwit
http://tinyurl.com/je6d67e
Apparently Racing UK has exclusivity on the final two races of each day.
Given BBC and ITV have a numerous channels each, I never understand why they have to cut off coverage for some repeated shit, or do the hokay cokey of constantly shifting around channels, cough cough The Olympics.....I got RSI of the constant channel shifting bollocks of Rio.
https://asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/kelly-family-press-release-on-the-bbc-dad-viral-video/
Hello by the way , not spoke for a while, hope you are well.
PS: Was not long till May showed what a turkey she is.
PPS: Plus it gives us another two years of fun
Newsnight last night was saying that the Tories are expecting a hefty fine, but that intent to commit voter fraud wasn't there (and it is a difficult burden to prove) so weren't expecting MP casualties from this. We'll see.
Given these battle buses shifted people around all over the place, often feeding them and putting them up in hotels outside of the seat the volunteers had been campaigning in, it seems very difficult to work out exactly how much of what goes where.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/labour-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone?CMP=share_btn_tw
Setting aside the controversy of the business model, Sky Sports F1 is a broadcasting showcase on how to cover an event from start to finish over several days. They even allow the producers a lot of leeway with the timing of the ad breaks.
Heads should roll!
The one I'm really concerned about is Thanet South, I was told that the Tories overspent by £200,000 in that seat.
Can you unknowingly overspend by £200k?
Plus the Tory defence a few months ago was 'Well UKIP overspent by even more in Thanet South'
Some PB fav's will need to be careful....
The Patriotic Alliance shares its name with a South African political party founded by a convicted bank robber turned motivational speaker…
https://order-order.com/2017/03/15/introducing-the-patriotic-alliance/
Also the Electoral Commission are sending a report to the Conservatives next week.
This could involve all parties in one way or another and would point to ambiguous wording in the legislation.
We will see in due course how this pans out
http://www.netinnederland.nl/en/speel~POMS_NOS_7814466~15-03-2017-nos-news~.html
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/27805567/__LIVE__Massaal_naar_stembus__.html
What have we learnt from this ?
1) The Conservative party doesn't have many fiscal conservatives
2) Proper preparation involves more than thinking up party political point scoring
3) Vested interests which scream the loudest get protected the most
4) If a small, progressive, fair and popular tax rise can be stopped then national bankruptcy lies ahead
This is not the same as my saying that the UK is secure, or can be secured, say for another hundred years. Britain may well be done for anyway. We might be able to stabilise things with root and branch reform - a constitution setting out a federal system, which would fix the end point of devolution and create a way to share power acceptable to all four parts of the UK. But this country is used to moving on by evolution rather than revolution, and besides the political forces mitigating against such an outcome are probably too great.
Having a First Minister of England and a Prime Minister or the UK at the same time suffers from what I call the "big train set" problem: no leader of a party that can aspire to win a majority in England wants that kind of devolution, because they want to be able to run the domestic agenda, and control whatever is left to the centre - say the borders, pensions, security and intelligence, defence, trade and foreign affairs - at the same time. One or the other's not good enough for them. They want to play with the whole train set, not share with somebody else.
The big train set problem derails the prospects of federalism. That in turn leaves us with an asymmetric and unstable system of competing parliaments, which is always going to be one nationalist spasm from collapse.
Hammond was not politically switched on but think he will survive, but should have done better
Signal - no tax promises in next manifesto
So not sure if popularity of the candidate is more influential than the popularity of their policies.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of French politics could enlighten me.
' Running a surplus by 2018 so that the UK "starts to pay down its debts" '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32302062
Where was the outcry when that commitment was broken ?
As I said earlier, the first real signs of movement in September 2014 came from the subsamples.
Similar observations questioning the validity were made then by Scot Lab people on here.
Worth keeping an eye to see if a pattern starts to develop.
* Panelbase, Ipsos, BMG and Survation have a range of 16% to 24% for SNP Unionists on this - but most polling pre-dates the call to referendum.
Yougov uses 2015 Vote, the others use Holyrood 2016.
Why did you cut off the last third of what I said? I wasn't hailing the survival of the Union - it may very well be finished - merely welcoming the joyous advent of the first shaft of light at the end of the tunnel.
Events of the next few years end one of two ways. Either Scotland goes, or the independence movement suffers a second defeat and is shoved back into its box, for a goodly while at least. Either way, we can look forward to an extended respite from the moaning. Good.
Either she didn't read it, when it should have been top of her in-tray - i.e incompetent or lazy
Or she did read it, didn't spot the NI rise / manifesto commitment issue, which suggests she doesn't even know what programme her government was elected on, and that she cannot be relied upon to proof anything before sending out.
Or she did read it, DID spot the conflict issue and figured she could handle the backlash - incorrectly believing her own hype that she was the next Lady T - and cracked at the first whisper of discontent. This is probably the most likely.
Finally, she did read it, did spot the conflict, and pressed ahead knowing there would be a backlash against Spreadsheet Phil - thereby weakening him as a potential rival and putting him in his place. This is also likely but not sure she is sufficiently machiavellian for that.
A classic document says, only when we do our tasks are we prepared. When we are prepared, there is no trouble.
There seems to have been ample time spent sharpening witticisms, less spent on the actual substance of the Budget.
Mr. Glenn, to have powers equal to Holyrood those kingdoms would require the ability to set income tax rates. It would institutionalise political division within England.
It seems they have to oppose everything and are not intelligent enough to see that by opposing this they have closed off this tax rise by themselves.
Same argument used by Labour leaderships since Keir Hardie.
Same reason the Labour Party voted against Maastricht.
We all make mistakes and it is only right to correct them. This u turn is obviously a gift to the opposition but paradoxically is unlikely to dent the conservatives with the public
As to lose their seat the MP personally would have to be convicted and sent to prison for at least a year (though in practice they would probably resign if given any prison sentence).