Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Well I agree with this. It's got so that if anyone does anything it's immediately hailed as a dead cat. To be honest, if I were a cat, I'd be quite worried by the human population's latent fixation with my death. https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/727877060069314564
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Not to mention
a) It will encourage more families to send children on hazardous solo trips to Europe
b) The ones we take will be able to petition for the rest of their family to join them, and in this respect represent a may well represent a cynical and dangerous attempt to circumvent our immigration restrictions.
Mr. Johnno, if the children are unsafe in France, I fail to see why the pressure isn't on France to improve conditions. [In fairness, this has started to happen].
It's also a shame that the political class wasn't this concerned about white working class kids in Rotherham (and elsewhere).
Well I agree with this. It's got so that if anyone does anything it's immediately hailed as a dead cat. To be honest, if I were a cat, I'd be quite worried by the human population's latent fixation with my death. https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/727877060069314564
There's a thread sat in the drafts section of PB headlined
'Sometimes a political fuck up is just that and not a dead cat'
In these expenses cases, such as Thanet South if proven/admitted, the offending parties Vote should be adjusted downwards by the perentage its spending has exceeded its legal limit. This saves the need for, and expense of, an automatic by-election. Prepare to take your seat in Parliament, Nigel Farage!
In these expenses cases, such as Thanet South if proven/admitted, the offending parties Vote should be adjusted downwards by the perentage its spending has exceeded its legal limit. This saves the need for, and expense of, an automatic by-election. Prepare to take your seat in Parliament, Nigel Farage!
Don't think it works like that. There could be a by election maybe, but would Nigel win it?
In these expenses cases, such as Thanet South if proven/admitted, the offending parties Vote should be adjusted downwards by the perentage its spending has exceeded its legal limit. This saves the need for, and expense of, an automatic by-election. Prepare to take your seat in Parliament, Nigel Farage!
Don't think it works like that. There could be a by election maybe, but would Nigel win it?
If the party were shown to have taken the piss been generous in its interpretation of the rules, it would be interesting to know if that were actionable as a civil matter. So could Farage sue the Conservative Party ?
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
That is just the spending limit. There is a reference to 365 days there but that is the period prior to the poll in which the expenditure is counted. It does not seem to deal with challenges.
Does anyone know the process by which the one-year deadline can be extended and the criteria for doing so?
I don't think this is right. In terms of s89 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended the appropriate officer must make available the return of a candidate for 2 years from the date of receipt and make copies of it available to anyone that asks on payment of a modest fee. After that he is entitled to destroy them.
Not everything in this legislation makes sense but it would seem surprising if the return has to be available for 2 years but is only capable of being challenged for 1 year after the election.
The time limits for an election petition are very short and set out in s122. Basically, as far as I can see there is 28 days in which to lodge such a petition, that period starting 10 days after the return was received or should have been received. I think I am right in saying the return should be lodged within 35 days of the election.
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
My understanding is that election petitions (to overturn an election result) have to be launched within a month, but claims of false representation have a much longer lifespan - normally a year, but subject to possible extension as noted above. Which makes sense if you think about it - you don't want the election result in doubt for years, but if you turned out to have completed fiddled your return and omitted to mention the million quid of publicity paid for by your rich uncle, you shouldn't get away with it just because 5 weeks have passed.
The reason it could in theory lead to by-elections is not that the result per se is overturned, but that MPs could be imprisoned for a year, triggering by-elections. I think that's frankly very unlikely indeed, but the Fiona Jones case shows that the law can run away with the process in ways one wouldn't expect.
The Electoral Commission have up to now said it was a matter for local police and CPS to assess, but as I gather a number of complaints have been lodged, they seem to have decided to get involved after all, perhaps because a consistent ruling is needed.
Apparently the trade unions will be funding telephone canvassing by Remain. Vote Leave by contrast seems unlikely to be able to afford the huge cost of phone canvassing. Is this expenditure to be included in Remain's referendum returns and if they are exceeded can the referendum result be annulled?
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
Not sure what you're looking for exactly SO, but take a look at the miscellany of markets available at the foot of this page from oddschecker.com and maybe you'll be lucky:
I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
He went on Corbyn friends of terrorists angle mostly, and it is obvious why.
The fact remains that the member for THanet South may only be in Parliament due to an "administrative error" - this latter should join "economical with the truth" in the long and dishonorable list of political euphemisms.
For anyone interested there is a ITN Wales/ Yougov Welsh Assembly poll coming out on Wales At Six this evening . They are also apparently going to conduct an exit poll tomorrow .
Hmm....Under schedule 19C paragraph 1 of the 2000 Act the Electoral Commission are given the power to impose fixed penalties on anyone they deem to have committed an offence under that Act. There are very complicated provisions and powers given to them entitling them to require information and for people to turn up and explain themselves but the scope of their powers seems to be a Stop notice (where the wrongful act is still ongoing), seeking an undertaking not to do it again and a fine. I can find no authority for them to seek to challenge the election itself outwith the time limits I referred to earlier.
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
That is just the spending limit. There is a reference to 365 days there but that is the period prior to the poll in which the expenditure is counted. It does not seem to deal with challenges.
@DavidL Section 45 of the same act is power to extend the time for delivering the relevant documents, and Section 47 the actions for failing to do so.
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Does anyone know the process by which the one-year deadline can be extended and the criteria for doing so?
I don't think this is right. In terms of s89 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended the appropriate officer must make available the return of a candidate for 2 years from the date of receipt and make copies of it available to anyone that asks on payment of a modest fee. After that he is entitled to destroy them.
Not everything in this legislation makes sense but it would seem surprising if the return has to be available for 2 years but is only capable of being challenged for 1 year after the election.
The time limits for an election petition are very short and set out in s122. Basically, as far as I can see there is 28 days in which to lodge such a petition, that period starting 10 days after the return was received or should have been received. I think I am right in saying the return should be lodged within 35 days of the election.
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
My understanding is that election petitions (to overturn an election result) have to be launched within a month, but claims of false representation have a much longer lifespan - normally a year, but subject to possible extension as noted above. Which makes sense if you think about it - you don't want the election result in doubt for years, but if you turned out to have completed fiddled your return and omitted to mention the million quid of publicity paid for by your rich uncle, you shouldn't get away with it just because 5 weeks have passed.
The reason it could in theory lead to by-elections is not that the result per se is overturned, but that MPs could be imprisoned for a year, triggering by-elections. I think that's frankly very unlikely indeed, but the Fiona Jones case shows that the law can run away with the process in ways one wouldn't expect.
The Electoral Commission have up to now said it was a matter for local police and CPS to assess, but as I gather a number of complaints have been lodged, they seem to have decided to get involved after all, perhaps because a consistent ruling is needed.
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
That is just the spending limit. There is a reference to 365 days there but that is the period prior to the poll in which the expenditure is counted. It does not seem to deal with challenges.
@DavidL Section 45 of the same act is power to extend the time for delivering the relevant documents, and Section 47 the actions for failing to do so.
These are provisions about the requirements to lodge accounts by a registered party, not for elections. I think schedule 19C is it in which case the Tories could be facing considerable embarrassment and fines but no by elections.
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
And this is the point - if they have submitted an illegal declaration of expenses they are finished.
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I saw one of Sunil's signs on the A34 just north of Stafford on bank holiday Monday, with a Union Flag motif:
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I saw one of Sunil's signs on the A34 just north of Stafford on bank holiday Monday, with a Union Flag motif:
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
You're sure that was not a more personal message?
You could just be right there David - we southerners aren't greatly liked in these parts, I do know that!
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
And this is the point - if they have submitted an illegal declaration of expenses they are finished.
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
We'll see what happens. It is an astonishingly stupid thing to do. Candidates get detailed guidance precisely to avoid this situation.
Mr. Runnymede, Cameron's EU behaviour is quite Lib Demmish, with the positive of actually going ahead with a vote, and the negative of not being open about his EU-philia.
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
And this is the point - if they have submitted an illegal declaration of expenses they are finished.
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
We'll see what happens. It is an astonishingly stupid thing to do. Candidates get detailed guidance precisely to avoid this situation.
Case as apparently stated it is indeed incredibly stupid, unless someone at Central Office has just been too clever.
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
And this is the point - if they have submitted an illegal declaration of expenses they are finished.
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
We'll see what happens. It is an astonishingly stupid thing to do. Candidates get detailed guidance precisely to avoid this situation.
And they're all parrotingthe same line issued to them by CCHQ - that the battle bus was national spend and their submissions are legal.
But if the battle bus was national spend, why wasn't it declared as national spend...?
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I saw one of Sunil's signs on the A34 just north of Stafford on bank holiday Monday, with a Union Flag motif:
"Believe in Britain!
Vote to Leave the EU!"
Btw Casino, did you see my post on the previous thread in response to yours regarding exorbitant AA road assistance charges? I couldn't believe what they were proposing to charge you.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Worse. They look like the Lib Dems.
That is why the LDs got slaughtered in the last election, why would you vote for the LDs as (at best) a junior coalition partner, when you can vote Conservative and get exactly the same Europhila, handwringing, failure to make significant cuts, and general right-on ineffectualness from the party of government.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Worse. They look like the Lib Dems.
That is why the LDs got slaughtered in the last election, why would you vote for the LDs as (at best) a junior coalition partner, when you can vote Conservative and get exactly the same Europhila, handwringing, failure to make significant cuts, and general right-on ineffectualness from the party of government.
I thought we appeared to be reaching the situation where the LibDems lost because of Tory jiggery-pokery
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
And this is the point - if they have submitted an illegal declaration of expenses they are finished.
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
We'll see what happens. It is an astonishingly stupid thing to do. Candidates get detailed guidance precisely to avoid this situation.
You are assuming the candidates themselves even had much to do with it or say about it. In my limited experience the decisions about this sort of support from Head Office will have been made much higher up the food chain.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Worse. They look like the Lib Dems.
That is why the LDs got slaughtered in the last election, why would you vote for the LDs as (at best) a junior coalition partner, when you can vote Conservative and get exactly the same Europhila, handwringing, failure to make significant cuts, and general right-on ineffectualness from the party of government.
I thought we appeared to be reaching the situation where the LibDems lost because of Tory jiggery-pokery
Well even the most ardent Cameroon draws the line at wearing sandals, so they needs a second string to their bow to deal with those people
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
You're sure that was not a more personal message?
You could just be right there David - we southerners aren't greatly liked in these parts, I do know that!
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
You're sure that was not a more personal message?
You could just be right there David - we southerners aren't greatly liked in these parts, I do know that!
Tyson - I suggest you don your tin hat, better still grab your coat and make a quick exit!
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I saw one of Sunil's signs on the A34 just north of Stafford on bank holiday Monday, with a Union Flag motif:
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I saw one of Sunil's signs on the A34 just north of Stafford on bank holiday Monday, with a Union Flag motif:
"Believe in Britain!
Vote to Leave the EU!"
Btw Casino, did you see my post on the previous thread in response to yours regarding exorbitant AA road assistance charges? I couldn't believe what they were proposing to charge you.
I didn't no..
I know, it's obscene. They do this every year, and then lower their price if you can be arsed to call them, but, to be honest, they've lost my trust: it's a stupid commercial game they're playing and a waste of my time.
If you like depressing, cold, rainy, grey, dark, wet places full of miserable, downbeat, whinging folk with grating accents like William hague- then the Yorkshire countryside is indeed the Garden of Eden.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Worse. They look like the Lib Dems.
That is why the LDs got slaughtered in the last election, why would you vote for the LDs as (at best) a junior coalition partner, when you can vote Conservative and get exactly the same Europhila, handwringing, failure to make significant cuts, and general right-on ineffectualness from the party of government.
I thought we appeared to be reaching the situation where the LibDems lost because of Tory jiggery-pokery
Well even the most ardent Cameroon draws the line at wearing sandals, so they needs a second string to their bow to deal with those people
I am, when in the Antipodes accused of not being a Brit, since I don’t wear socks with sandals.
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
I saw one of Sunil's signs on the A34 just north of Stafford on bank holiday Monday, with a Union Flag motif:
When you have spent so much time, energy and money trying to lose the "nasty party" tag, when you have irritated some of your supporters with gay marriage, irritated even more with Overseas aid contributions and had some chewing the carpet about an increased national minimum wage and 40 odd % of the population not even paying tax and then you are faced with turning your back on unaccompanied children amongst chatter of Kinder trains life is difficult.
The tough would say that is what governing is all about and in taking children from the camps we are more than doing our bit; that helping those already here simply encourages desperate parents to send even more children into the perils of the sea and the traffickers.
And they would be right of course. Cameron's initial policy was the correct one for a lot of reasons. But it does not surprise me at all that the government has given way on this and I for one do not find it in me to criticise a government for helping in this way.
Mr. Runnymede, Cameron's EU behaviour is quite Lib Demmish, with the positive of actually going ahead with a vote, and the negative of not being open about his EU-philia.
I reckon he has been pretty open these last few weeks
We'll see what happens. It is an astonishingly stupid thing to do. Candidates get detailed guidance precisely to avoid this situation.
And they're all parrotingthe same line issued to them by CCHQ - that the battle bus was national spend and their submissions are legal.
But if the battle bus was national spend, why wasn't it declared as national spend...?
Unless I'm completely misreading this, the issue isn't the bus spend, it's activist accommodation spend. The costs of the buses were declared nationally, but the hotels used to accommodate activists weren't. The activists were bussed into marginal constituencies to campaign close to election day. None of this is disputed. The two key points are
1) CCHQ say that it was an administrative error that led to the hotel costs being undeclared as national costs (this seems likely to be accurate, as they wouldn't have breached any limits if declared) and
2) CCHQ argue that they were national campaigners promoting the party, not the local candidate. This works as a defence in theory and I assume is the reason that the cost of party leadership visiting a constituency doesn't get treated as local spend (someone mentioned the EdStone unveiling earlier - that would be a valid example of national spend taking place in a constituency). However, C4 claim to have evidence of activists following a pattern of canvassing on behalf of the local candidate by name - "I'm here on behalf of your candidate xx".
If they are right on point 2 this is going to be hard to defend. The purpose of the law is to limit how much money can be spent on getting people to turn up on doorsteps saying "I'm here on behalf of candidate x" rather than "I'm here on behalf of party Y". Whether it's a sensible law is open to debate, but it seems clear that is what it says.
Watching the dynamics between Cameron and Corbyn at PMQ's is interesting- it clearly has become a bullying/victim relationship where Cameron is the bully- he shouts, he abuses, he harasses, he taunts, he demeans, he belittles- it seems to come quite naturally to him. Cameron really looks angry and quite threatening in full flow.
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
I haven't seen today's episode yet but the kind of thing you describe, while it might engender some sympathy for Corbyn, won't, I think, make people vote for him. So from that point of view it is probably good business for Cameron.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Worse. They look like the Lib Dems.
That is why the LDs got slaughtered in the last election, why would you vote for the LDs as (at best) a junior coalition partner, when you can vote Conservative and get exactly the same Europhila, handwringing, failure to make significant cuts, and general right-on ineffectualness from the party of government.
I thought we appeared to be reaching the situation where the LibDems lost because of Tory jiggery-pokery
Well even the most ardent Cameroon draws the line at wearing sandals, so they needs a second string to their bow to deal with those people
I am, when in the Antipodes accused of not being a Brit, since I don’t wear socks with sandals.
Even living in the tropics being a good Tory I don't even wear sandals (or it might be because if I don't wear leathers shoes and socks the damn ants start to make a snack out of my toes). Either way I support my claim by adding that I wear a pair of M&S traditional slippers around the house, I used to have to get them sent over, but a branch of M&S opened locally recently so standards can be maintained
When you have spent so much time, energy and money trying to lose the "nasty party" tag, when you have irritated some of your supporters with gay marriage, irritated even more with Overseas aid contributions and had some chewing the carpet about an increased national minimum wage and 40 odd % of the population not even paying tax and then you are faced with turning your back on unaccompanied children amongst chatter of Kinder trains life is difficult.
The tough would say that is what governing is all about and in taking children from the camps we are more than doing our bit; that helping those already here simply encourages desperate parents to send even more children into the perils of the sea and the traffickers.
And they would be right of course. Cameron's initial policy was the correct one for a lot of reasons. But it does not surprise me at all that the government has given way on this and I for one do not find it in me to criticise a government for helping in this way.
It was inevitable once when even the Daily Mail was telling Cameron to take the children in.
When you have spent so much time, energy and money trying to lose the "nasty party" tag, when you have irritated some of your supporters with gay marriage, irritated even more with Overseas aid contributions and had some chewing the carpet about an increased national minimum wage and 40 odd % of the population not even paying tax and then you are faced with turning your back on unaccompanied children amongst chatter of Kinder trains life is difficult.
The tough would say that is what governing is all about and in taking children from the camps we are more than doing our bit; that helping those already here simply encourages desperate parents to send even more children into the perils of the sea and the traffickers.
And they would be right of course. Cameron's initial policy was the correct one for a lot of reasons. But it does not surprise me at all that the government has given way on this and I for one do not find it in me to criticise a government for helping in this way.
When you have spent so much time, energy and money trying to lose the "nasty party" tag, when you have irritated some of your supporters with gay marriage, irritated even more with Overseas aid contributions and had some chewing the carpet about an increased national minimum wage and 40 odd % of the population not even paying tax and then you are faced with turning your back on unaccompanied children amongst chatter of Kinder trains life is difficult.
The tough would say that is what governing is all about and in taking children from the camps we are more than doing our bit; that helping those already here simply encourages desperate parents to send even more children into the perils of the sea and the traffickers.
And they would be right of course. Cameron's initial policy was the correct one for a lot of reasons. But it does not surprise me at all that the government has given way on this and I for one do not find it in me to criticise a government for helping in this way.
I'm all for us doing our bit, but why have other EU countries let this get so bad. Why has the EU country furthest from all of this got to pick up all the slack?
When you have spent so much time, energy and money trying to lose the "nasty party" tag, when you have irritated some of your supporters with gay marriage, irritated even more with Overseas aid contributions and had some chewing the carpet about an increased national minimum wage and 40 odd % of the population not even paying tax and then you are faced with turning your back on unaccompanied children amongst chatter of Kinder trains life is difficult.
The tough would say that is what governing is all about and in taking children from the camps we are more than doing our bit; that helping those already here simply encourages desperate parents to send even more children into the perils of the sea and the traffickers.
And they would be right of course. Cameron's initial policy was the correct one for a lot of reasons. But it does not surprise me at all that the government has given way on this and I for one do not find it in me to criticise a government for helping in this way.
It was inevitable once when even the Daily Mail was telling Cameron to take the children in.
Many of those children will rapidly be advised by the sort of hand wringer that hangs around immigration centres to petition for all their family to come and join them in the UK, most of which will have to make basically no case because the child needs its parents etc. So another half a dozen people will promptly evade immigration controls completely.
I don't think the MP needs to have committed an imprisonable offence. From the Act ..
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void. (2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
And this is the point - if they have submitted an illegal declaration of expenses they are finished.
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
We'll see what happens. It is an astonishingly stupid thing to do. Candidates get detailed guidance precisely to avoid this situation.
You are assuming the candidates themselves even had much to do with it or say about it. In my limited experience the decisions about this sort of support from Head Office will have been made much higher up the food chain.
Undoubtedly. But the candidate is legally responsible for his declaration and he is the one that will be thrown out if it's shown to be false.
I was born and brought up in Lancashire. It is funny how county lines and hostilities are drawn. Even now when I am with fellow Lancastrians whenever we mention Yorkshire- the word bastards always follows. At school even our teachers took some delight in seeing Sheffield nuked in Threads- we watched it in sixth form and we all cheered when the nukes went off. Terrible.
That said, East Lancastrians- Burnley, Accrington- they're miserable, dour souls too. I blame it on the weather and bad light.
Amidst the plethora of political signage seemingly attached to every last lamp post in this part of rural West Yorkshire, I spotted this afternoon my first EU Referendum sign ..... coloured red (which I thought was interesting in itself) with the one word LEAVE in large upper case lettering.
You're sure that was not a more personal message?
You could just be right there David - we southerners aren't greatly liked in these parts, I do know that!
Tyson - I suggest you don your tin hat, better still grab your coat and make a quick exit!
Now that the Donald is the last man standing the media wisecrack/revulsion articles have started. I think I've read three today.
Goodness knows how many we're going to get before November
One imagines they will have to take a view on that if it starts to look like he might win, otherwise there is going to be no special interviews for their journalists, and other outlets will get all the juicy official leaks.
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
That's why I wondered whether it had been researched. During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me but they were tested to be the most effective of the election. A perfect example of the value of research.
I'm all for us doing our bit, but why have other EU countries let this get so bad. Why has the EU country furthest from all of this got to pick up all the slack?
Because they know we are soft touches. They know they if they sit on their arses and do nothing for a few months the Daily Handwring will jump into gear and all of a sudden their problem will become our problem. We should get the word "sucker" tattooed on our national forehead.
Todays Hammering of Corbyn by Dave was entirely justified..this man has been dodging the Hamas and Hezbollah crap for too long He quite rightly looked evasive and cowed.. as he should..he is a shameless person
Roger- I thought those Tory posters were excellent, and amongst the most powerful I have seen- up there with the Saatchi posters even. They really did make Ed look to be weak and a pushover, and they got in the SNP threat too. Class
OT. I'm struggling to understand what Cameron's tactics were linking Khan to terrorism today. Either his team have researched it and it's been found to be a concern among Londoners or he's just flying a kite it which case the effect wont be neutral for his man-it'll be negative.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
I'd imagine its exactly the sort of thing that might motivate Tory leaning voters, who might otherwise have sat on their hands, to get out and vote. Might help a little with the second preferences too.
Lynton knows..
That's why I wondered whether it had been researched. During the election the posters with Miliband in Salmond's pocket didn't make any sense to me but they were tested to be the most effective of the election. A perfect example of the value of research.
I see fake Dave has done a U-turn on the refugee children that are in the safe EU.
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
Baffling. The Tories are looking more and more like New Labour.
Worse. They look like the Lib Dems.
That is why the LDs got slaughtered in the last election, why would you vote for the LDs as (at best) a junior coalition partner, when you can vote Conservative and get exactly the same Europhila, handwringing, failure to make significant cuts, and general right-on ineffectualness from the party of government.
I thought we appeared to be reaching the situation where the LibDems lost because of Tory jiggery-pokery
Breaching rules on spending is serious stuff, but if people are susceptible to the message they are susceptible to the message. No amount of overspending will turn bootle Tory for instance. So it can have an impact, or else why do it, but how much is hard to say I'd have thought
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
If criminal prosecutions materialise from this , I suspect it will be well into next year before the issue comes to trial. Were there to be convictions which triggered 20 by-elections the Government would effectively lose its majority during the period leading up to such elections and would become dependent on the Unionists for survival. Moreover, if we end up with 20 by-elections , I would expect the Government to lose a good half of them - including Thanet South to Farage.
Comments
Why should Britain take refugee children from other safe countries in the hundreds maybe in the thousands when Britain can't cope already,look at Kent for example.
This countries political elite have gone mad with the none stop mass immigration industry that see no end,we seem to forget we are a small country.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/727877060069314564
3(2&3) appears to set spending limits
The law covering the powers etc is the same act
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41#part-V
a) It will encourage more families to send children on hazardous solo trips to Europe
b) The ones we take will be able to petition for the rest of their family to join them, and in this respect represent a may well represent a cynical and dangerous attempt to circumvent our immigration restrictions.
It's also a shame that the political class wasn't this concerned about white working class kids in Rotherham (and elsewhere).
'Sometimes a political fuck up is just that and not a dead cat'
Where's the best place to go to bet on final Premier League positions?
There could be a by election maybe, but would Nigel win it?
Ah, it's an "administrative error".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36203093
The reason it could in theory lead to by-elections is not that the result per se is overturned, but that MPs could be imprisoned for a year, triggering by-elections. I think that's frankly very unlikely indeed, but the Fiona Jones case shows that the law can run away with the process in ways one wouldn't expect.
The Electoral Commission have up to now said it was a matter for local police and CPS to assess, but as I gather a number of complaints have been lodged, they seem to have decided to get involved after all, perhaps because a consistent ruling is needed.
It seems far fetched to me that Londoners will believe a sitting MP is being allowed to walk the streets if he's linked to terrorists. To risk breaking the first rule of advertising -that your claim is believable-is a strange tactic immediately before an election.
That does seem open to question.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league
(1) If a candidate who has been elected is reported by election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void.
(2) A candidate at a parliamentary election shall also be incapable from the date of the report of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons for the constituency for which the election was held
Channel 4 exposed some very disturbing information in relation to those by-elections where the overspend appeared to be into the tens of thousands. That is not an "administrative error". That the battle bus has been declared neither as local nor national for the general election that followed those by-elections is not an "administrative error". It starts to look like a pattern of behaviour.
Bill Cash tells David Cameron there's going to be "an historic vote on your package as a whole". #ooeer #pleaseyourself
"Believe in Britain!
Vote to Leave the EU!"
Even if some of you stole our king.
No wonder Dave has avoided talking about it.
But if the battle bus was national spend, why wasn't it declared as national spend...?
This kind of behaviour is not uncommon for PMQ's, but Corbyn's response is unusual- he looks and acts like a classic victim. His whole body language is victim like- almost cowering. You expect Dianne Abbot to jump up and shout at Cameron "Leave the old man alone, he's trying his best.." whilst shepherding Corbyn away. It makes compelling viewing in an unpleasant way.
Should Cameron tone it down? No, I don't think so. You don't let your enemy off the hook when they are down, and Corbyn is most certainly down on the canvass. I doubt Corbyn is going to put himself through this ritual humiliation week in, week out- but Cameron should continue pressing home his advantage.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/157709/labour-suspends-momentum-supporter-who-claimed-jews-caused-african-holocaust
..But the good news is.... EP3 of The Night Manager tonight .. Yahoo
It should be:
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
I know, it's obscene. They do this every year, and then lower their price if you can be arsed to call them, but, to be honest, they've lost my trust: it's a stupid commercial game they're playing and a waste of my time.
So I will probably go Green Flag.
The tough would say that is what governing is all about and in taking children from the camps we are more than doing our bit; that helping those already here simply encourages desperate parents to send even more children into the perils of the sea and the traffickers.
And they would be right of course. Cameron's initial policy was the correct one for a lot of reasons. But it does not surprise me at all that the government has given way on this and I for one do not find it in me to criticise a government for helping in this way.
Goodness knows how many we're going to get before November
1) CCHQ say that it was an administrative error that led to the hotel costs being undeclared as national costs (this seems likely to be accurate, as they wouldn't have breached any limits if declared) and
2) CCHQ argue that they were national campaigners promoting the party, not the local candidate. This works as a defence in theory and I assume is the reason that the cost of party leadership visiting a constituency doesn't get treated as local spend (someone mentioned the EdStone unveiling earlier - that would be a valid example of national spend taking place in a constituency). However, C4 claim to have evidence of activists following a pattern of canvassing on behalf of the local candidate by name - "I'm here on behalf of your candidate xx".
If they are right on point 2 this is going to be hard to defend. The purpose of the law is to limit how much money can be spent on getting people to turn up on doorsteps saying "I'm here on behalf of candidate x" rather than "I'm here on behalf of party Y". Whether it's a sensible law is open to debate, but it seems clear that is what it says.
Oh you were talking about the GOP race.
That said, East Lancastrians- Burnley, Accrington- they're miserable, dour souls too. I blame it on the weather and bad light.
Clinton 54 .. Trump 41
Clinton 52 .. Cruz 42
Clinton 44 .. Kasich 51
Sanders 56 .. Trump 40
Sanders 57 .. Cruz 39
Sanders 50 .. Kasich 46
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/05/04/rel6b.-.2016.general.pdf
http://trib.al/8mtUrMl
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kasich-dropping-out-of-presidential-race-222792