Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
I've always said I thought the Thanet charges may well need an airing in court. But much of the rest - the "battlebus" stuff - is likely to prove a politically motivated waste of police time.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Aliens on Film4 right now
The scene where Ripley is desperately trying to turn off the self destruct... somewhat analogous to the position moderate Lab MPs are in now.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
The procedural errors were covered by the Commission fine. They are now investigating criminal intent.
There's people already convinced the Tories literally bought the last election - I do wonder if Corbyn would prefer charges or no charges. Sure, charges gives an opportunity to point out corrupt Tories, but he's be limited in how much he was allowed to say. No charges and he can say it is about a corrupt system that lets people get away with things.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Aliens on Film4 right now
The scene where Ripley is desperately trying to turn off the self destruct... somewhat analogous to the position moderate Lab MPs are in now.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
The procedural errors were covered by the Commission fine. They are now investigating criminal intent.
I was using the term a little broadly - I meant more technical breaches which could still be criminal in intent. Eg deliberately accounting things incorrectly, overspending a little vs the big stuff, like in Thanet.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
As I understand the problem is with the battle bus and Theresa May has already said it is not the MP's fault. Also all the MP's are standing as far as I am aware so CCHQ must be confident of the outcome
Oh god....Another conspiracy....Has Ricky tomlinson showed anybody his too secret binder of evidence that he is always so keen to tell people about but less keen for anybody to see it.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
The procedural errors were covered by the Commission fine. They are now investigating criminal intent.
I was using the term a little broadly - I meant more technical breaches which could still be criminal in intent. Eg deliberately accounting things incorrectly, overspending a little vs the big stuff, like in Thanet.
Yeah, that's fair enough. Just hope it isn't a drip-drip-drip of announcements over a four week period.
Is there going to be an election prediction competition this time? FWIW, for the GB vote, I'll go for something like: Tories 45.6% Labour 24.7% LDs 11.8% UKIP 6.9% Greens 5.4% SNP 5.0% Others the balance
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
As I understand the problem is with the battle bus and Theresa May has already said it is not the MP's fault. Also all the MP's are standing as far as I am aware so CCHQ must be confident of the outcome
The issue is whether an item of national expenditure (unrestricted) should be levied on individual constituencies (restricted) and if so, how is it to be sliced and diced. The finest legal minds in the CPS have been debating the issue for two long years so it's somewhat unreasonable to expect a bog-standard Tory MP or agent to anticipate their conclusions in the 28 days allowed for an expenses return. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but honest behaviour without criminal intent prior to the law being clarified is a defensible position.
What about those who aren't voting CON but would never vote for Labour under the Corbynsiah? (I still cannot get over that LabourList comment literally compared Corbyn to 'the other JC')
There's people already convinced the Tories literally bought the last election - I do wonder if Corbyn would prefer charges or no charges. Sure, charges gives an opportunity to point out corrupt Tories, but he's be limited in how much he was allowed to say. No charges and he can say it is about a corrupt system that lets people get away with things.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it.
Also, if anyone does get charged with a criminal offence, then anyone who subsequently talks publicly about the case could be held in contempt of court. Any politician who tried to mention the case or cases in an interview or speech on TV or radio will very quickly find themselves cut off by the broadcaster.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Aliens on Film4 right now
The scene where Ripley is desperately trying to turn off the self destruct... somewhat analogous to the position moderate Lab MPs are in now.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Aliens on Film4 right now
The scene where Ripley is desperately trying to turn off the self destruct... somewhat analogous to the position moderate Lab MPs are in now.
There's people already convinced the Tories literally bought the last election - I do wonder if Corbyn would prefer charges or no charges. Sure, charges gives an opportunity to point out corrupt Tories, but he's be limited in how much he was allowed to say. No charges and he can say it is about a corrupt system that lets people get away with things.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it.
Also, if anyone does get charged with a criminal offence, then anyone who subsequently talks publicly about the case could be held in contempt of court. Any politician who tried to mention the case or cases in an interview or speech on TV or radio will very quickly find themselves cut off by the broadcaster.
I seem to remember Starmer when DPP standing in front of cameras making an announcement re charging someone.
So presumably there would basically just be one day of news headlines "DPP announces charges ........." but then that would pretty well be it.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
No it doesn't. If a high number are prosecuted, then even if pretty marginal matters I can see the Tories taking a slight hit, but momentum is high (jury is still out on whether Momentum is high, however) and there'd have to be several egregious breaches to really derail things I think. If there's a handful of serious cases, that could lead to a bump in the road, but i have doubts it would be sustained (though it could be close to election day). If there's only 1 or two charges, though serious, it'll be shrugged off.
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
As I understand the problem is with the battle bus and Theresa May has already said it is not the MP's fault. Also all the MP's are standing as far as I am aware so CCHQ must be confident of the outcome
The issue is whether an item of national expenditure (unrestricted) should be levied on individual constituencies (restricted) and if so, how is it to be sliced and diced. The finest legal minds in the CPS have been debating the issue for two long years so it's somewhat unreasonable to expect a bog-standard Tory MP or agent to anticipate their conclusions in the 28 days allowed for an expenses return. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but honest behaviour without criminal intent prior to the law being clarified is a defensible position.
Also... if well-heeled activists turn up and campaign at their own expense, do you have to record their travel, accommodation and subsistence expenses as donations to your local campaign? Because that's really no different to Central Office paying people's expenses.
There's people already convinced the Tories literally bought the last election - I do wonder if Corbyn would prefer charges or no charges. Sure, charges gives an opportunity to point out corrupt Tories, but he's be limited in how much he was allowed to say. No charges and he can say it is about a corrupt system that lets people get away with things.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it.
Also, if anyone does get charged with a criminal offence, then anyone who subsequently talks publicly about the case could be held in contempt of court. Any politician who tried to mention the case or cases in an interview or speech on TV or radio will very quickly find themselves cut off by the broadcaster.
I seem to remember Starmer when DPP standing in front of cameras making an announcement re charging someone.
So presumably there would basically just be one day of news headlines "DPP announces charges ........." but then that would pretty well be it.
If so, the damage to Con shouldn't be that great.
That's my understanding, I'm sure one of the many PB lawyers will confirm. The CPS will announce charges, the media will report in a matter of fact manner, may interview another journalist for background on the case but being very aware of the context of the election. No way will any politician be asked on to comment on the charges. Then nothing until the start of the trial, which may be many months away.
Also note that sub judice and contempt of court rules also very much apply to that usually unregulated political speech bubble that is the Internet.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Aliens on Film4 right now
The scene where Ripley is desperately trying to turn off the self destruct... somewhat analogous to the position moderate Lab MPs are in now.
Apologies for not doing this in time for the previous thread, but I've gone through the results in Surrey to see if we can learn anything about the Lib Dems. They only gained two seats from the Tories - Caterham Valley and Godalming North. The first of these includes a number of railway stations on Southern (that might be an issue here) while the latter has Godalming and Farncombe railway stations.
It would seem reasonable to assume that the Lib Dems performed particularly well in these locations due to them having a higher number of Remain voting London commuters. So with this in mind I've taken a look at how the Lib Dems did in Woking, Guildford and Haselmere as these also have a high number of commuters. Here's how they got on:
Woking South West: +7.4 pp Goldworth East and Horsell Village: +7.9 pp Woking South: +10.2 pp Woking South East: +12.5 pp Woking North: -4.2 pp Guildford South West: +16.2 pp Guidford East: +10.7 pp Guildford North: +6.9 pp Guildford South East: +14.5 pp Guildford West: +8.1pp Godalming North: +24.7 pp Haselmere: +19.9 pp (the independent that won in 2013 did not run in 2017)
All: +10.6 pp
In Surrey as a whole, the Lib Dems were up 7 pp, so they did better in these places. So the Lib Dems might do better in SW London than the national polls are suggesting, but of course these are just local elections on relatively low turnouts.
If SNP hold BRS and take the Holyrood seat I would be poor and feel guilty about all the people i told to pile on the Tories at the absurdly generous odds but I would laugh for a week.
For the Tories to breach 44% would in itself be quite an achievement. That hasn't happened since 1970 (when Labour actually lost with a vote share of 43%).
The issue is whether an item of national expenditure (unrestricted) should be levied on individual constituencies (restricted) and if so, how is it to be sliced and diced. The finest legal minds in the CPS have been debating the issue for two long years so it's somewhat unreasonable to expect a bog-standard Tory MP or agent to anticipate their conclusions in the 28 days allowed for an expenses return. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but honest behaviour without criminal intent prior to the law being clarified is a defensible position.
Good summary. It is not so much a case of ignorance of the law. The candidates (now MPs) were told by CCHQ that the battlebus was to be treated as national expenditure.
There are a number of cases where the safety first approach of including a proportion of the battlebus costs would still have meant the expenses were within set limits.
The EU budget only runs until 2020, there's no way we would be any obligation to them whatsoever after that date. Maybe we might be kind enough to pay a proportion, say 33%, between our leave date in 2019 and the end of the budget cycle. So £4bn.
Isn't it entirely in the CPS' hands now? The decision is based on the information in the case file
I heard some background to one of the cases today. 12 "charges" were being investigated by the police relating to expenses.
One was - why were there no receipts submitted for their Facebook page?
Another was - why was there no receipt for an advert in the local paper where the by now MP thanked the voters for their support.
Another was a claim that the then Home Secretary, now PM, arrived in the constituency in a second, secret trip by the battle-bus - rather than driven in by Special Branch minders.
On and on. Nonsense, top to bottom.
The Thanet ones don't sound like nonsense...
Hey, RobD! Don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate PB Tories will protect you!
Aliens on Film4 right now
The scene where Ripley is desperately trying to turn off the self destruct... somewhat analogous to the position moderate Lab MPs are in now.
Comments
https://twitter.com/CalumKerrSNP/status/860943735957463041
"He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody."
Aliens on Film4 right now
I'm a firm believer in punishing for procedural type errors - you should not have any problem following the rules - and for some who are looking for reasons to not trust the Tories even a small breach will offput them, but unless there are either lots of charges and/or very serious ones, I don't think it will connect with the public as much as some hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz4kXFI_VtE
LOL
Tories.......46%
Labour.......26%
Libdem......12%
UKIP........6.5%
Green.......3.8%
SNP..........4.5%
What were the figures anyway ?
Also, if anyone does get charged with a criminal offence, then anyone who subsequently talks publicly about the case could be held in contempt of court. Any politician who tried to mention the case or cases in an interview or speech on TV or radio will very quickly find themselves cut off by the broadcaster.
Well, it's almost 3 times what I get, so sure, raid 'em.
So presumably there would basically just be one day of news headlines "DPP announces charges ........." but then that would pretty well be it.
If so, the damage to Con shouldn't be that great.
This 30/31% is becoming quite entrenched.
So what will you do tomorrow when the Corbyn banner is unfurled ?
Also note that sub judice and contempt of court rules also very much apply to that usually unregulated political speech bubble that is the Internet.
It would seem reasonable to assume that the Lib Dems performed particularly well in these locations due to them having a higher number of Remain voting London commuters. So with this in mind I've taken a look at how the Lib Dems did in Woking, Guildford and Haselmere as these also have a high number of commuters. Here's how they got on:
Woking South West: +7.4 pp
Goldworth East and Horsell Village: +7.9 pp
Woking South: +10.2 pp
Woking South East: +12.5 pp
Woking North: -4.2 pp
Guildford South West: +16.2 pp
Guidford East: +10.7 pp
Guildford North: +6.9 pp
Guildford South East: +14.5 pp
Guildford West: +8.1pp
Godalming North: +24.7 pp
Haselmere: +19.9 pp (the independent that won in 2013 did not run in 2017)
All: +10.6 pp
In Surrey as a whole, the Lib Dems were up 7 pp, so they did better in these places. So the Lib Dems might do better in SW London than the national polls are suggesting, but of course these are just local elections on relatively low turnouts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill-legally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/
titters
http://orb-international.com/perch/resources/orb-the-telegraph-3rd-4th-may.pdf
There are a number of cases where the safety first approach of including a proportion of the battlebus costs would still have meant the expenses were within set limits.
6% of their 31% are SNP/UKIP returners,
Labour's vote without these returners/DNVs/Minors is 22%
Con 47% (-1)
Lab 28% (-1)
LD 14 (+4)
Changes since Wednesday
The EU budget only runs until 2020, there's no way we would be any obligation to them whatsoever after that date. Maybe we might be kind enough to pay a proportion, say 33%, between our leave date in 2019 and the end of the budget cycle. So £4bn.
"I can't lie to you about your chances, but you have my sympathies."