politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB leadership round-up on the afternoon the Appeal Court s

First like Smith

FPT: Mr. Llama, perhaps your son is heir to the iron throne?

David Cowling's analysis speaks volumes.

If I was one of the disenfranchised 130K, I’d ask for my money back – this could be costly.

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

We should call for a judge-led enquiry into the whole process.

OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

That we even ask these questions is either farcical or hillarious, depending on your point of view.

The Labour Party is a popcorngasm for the Tories these days is it not?

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.

I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?

FPT @Casino_Royale

Most likely it's just overpriced. If things are wrongly prices they just aren't selling

If the agent didn't flinch at £525K, try below £500K... (although he now knows you have some flexibility). You could make an argument as to why £475K would be the "right" number, but I suspect that £495K will be a psychological level for the seller.

Assuming it's in Hampshire, then it will probably be fine - a standard survey (unless old) and understanding the local development plan will probably be all you need.
Flag Quote · Off Topic

William Hill

Court of Appeal result sees backing for Owen Smith, 8/1 to 6/1 to win Labour leadership contest, with Corbyn out from 1/20 to 1/12. #Labour

fpt

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Right, advice please.

Wife and I looking at a property tomorrow. We both really like the look of it. It's a 5 bed and way cheaper than it should be - on for £550k but should be around £600k (it was on for sale in 2012 at 495k and failed to sell) and been with present owner since 1996.

Estate agent didn't flinch when I said I couldn't beat £525k and we got a viewing on Sat at a time of our choice with two days notice. It's been on the market since early Feb. Kitchen is small and internally the space could be used better, but I'm astonished it hasn't shifted yet.

What's wrong with it? What should I ask?

Get a mining report/full conveyancing done, also check it isn't near a train track.

It's right next to a preserved heritage railway, which mainly runs at weekends.

I kind of love steam trains so, to me, this is a plus.

Virtually the entire property market, certainly the one for mortals, is contingent upon one person being able to compromise and put up with something that another couldn't stand.

It might easily be the railway, and if you like it, then you are laughing. I once lived over a pizza place. Couldn't have mattered less to me (I certainly ate more pizzas) but might have put others off, etc...

BudG said:

Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?

Presumably Labour will have to give refunds to any that want them?

Advertising misrepresentation would still apply, even if they're allowed to change their own rules at random.

But, of course, they don't want refunds; they want to vote.

JosiasJessop said:

Thrak said:

From previous thread -

Casino_Royale said:

Right, advice please.

Wife and I looking at a property tomorrow. We both really like the look of it. It's a 5 bed and way cheaper than it should be - on for £550k but should be around £600k (it was on for sale in 2012 at 495k and failed to sell) and been with present owner since 1996.

Estate agent didn't flinch when I said I couldn't beat £525k and we got a viewing on Sat at a time of our choice with two days notice. It's been on the market since early Feb. Kitchen is small and internally the space could be used better, but I'm astonished it hasn't shifted.

What's wrong with it? What should I ask?

Was someone murdered there?

Maybe it's in the catchment area of a poor school. Especially if it's not detached, check up on neighbours and neighbour disputes. Is it near a noisy/smelly business or entertainment venue? Road with cuthrough traffic? Planning permissions for something that would affect it?

Make an offer, contingent on getting a full survey done. Back out if it comes back with problems. If it's been on the market for that time and it's okay, they should accept conditions on any offer I would think.

Another possible thing that an acquaintance of mine fell foul of: 4+ bed properties, particularly even a little way out in the sticks, tend to be 'family' homes. Families like large gardens for the kids to play in.

I think CR's mentioned before that he has no children; if that's right, for such a large property it might be wise to think how people with kids would look at it.

In town, I guess it would not matter as much, as the property could be split into flats and gardens are smaller anyway.

(My acquaintance and his wife put a large extension on their house, changing it from a ?4? bed to a 6-bed, along with a massive kitchen. This ate up a significant chunk of the garden. When they came to sell, they were told it had only increased the house's price marginally as many potential buyers would prefer a larger garden).

I can back that up. I'm looking for a property with no, or a very easy to manage, garden at the moment (I really am useless with plants, even grass is a mystery to me). The prices are much less than those with a fair bit of green.

Catchment areas really is an issue with larger houses. A large family might go smaller to get into a better school or, equally, save the money to use it for a private school. Maybe it's miles from the nearest schools. Most with no children would probably not want excess bedrooms so five beds might be seen as unnecessary.

Again, I'd be quite happy with a four or five bed, one property I'm looking at would be perfect for getting in a lodger (separate bathroom etc) and you can charge up to £7500 per year tax free.

https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/the-rent-a-room-scheme

BudG said:

Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?

Labour is not a company.

TOPPING said:

fpt

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Right, advice please.

Wife and I looking at a property tomorrow. We both really like the look of it. It's a 5 bed and way cheaper than it should be - on for £550k but should be around £600k (it was on for sale in 2012 at 495k and failed to sell) and been with present owner since 1996.

Estate agent didn't flinch when I said I couldn't beat £525k and we got a viewing on Sat at a time of our choice with two days notice. It's been on the market since early Feb. Kitchen is small and internally the space could be used better, but I'm astonished it hasn't shifted yet.

What's wrong with it? What should I ask?

Get a mining report/full conveyancing done, also check it isn't near a train track.

It's right next to a preserved heritage railway, which mainly runs at weekends.

I kind of love steam trains so, to me, this is a plus.

Virtually the entire property market, certainly the one for mortals, is contingent upon one person being able to compromise and put up with something that another couldn't stand.

It might easily be the railway, and if you like it, then you are laughing. I once lived over a pizza place. Couldn't have mattered less to me (I certainly ate more pizzas) but might have put others off, etc...

Smuts all over the garden/washing?

MarkHopkins said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Right, advice please.

Wife and I looking at a property tomorrow. We both really like the look of it. It's a 5 bed and way cheaper than it should be - on for £550k but should be around £600k (it was on for sale in 2012 at 495k and failed to sell) and been with present owner since 1996.

Estate agent didn't flinch when I said I couldn't beat £525k and we got a viewing on Sat at a time of our choice with two days notice. It's been on the market since early Feb. Kitchen is small and internally the space could be used better, but I'm astonished it hasn't shifted yet.

What's wrong with it? What should I ask?

Get a mining report/full conveyancing done, also check it isn't near a train track.

It's right next to a preserved heritage railway, which mainly runs at weekends.

I kind of love steam trains so, to me, this is a plus.

Virtually the entire property market, certainly the one for mortals, is contingent upon one person being able to compromise and put up with something that another couldn't stand.

It might easily be the railway, and if you like it, then you are laughing. I once lived over a pizza place. Couldn't have mattered less to me (I certainly ate more pizzas) but might have put others off, etc...

Ahh. So that's where you get your screen name from....

LOL!

John_M said:

OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.

Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?

Some are turning - Alex Andreou, a former Corbyn supporter:

"This is partly out of profound hurt. I feel let down by him. Duped. Because it is inconceivable to me how someone so utterly ill-equipped to do such an important job, could have put himself forward for doing it."

and

"LABOUR'S PROBLEMS ARE HUGE, CORBYN ASIDE - Labour are probably shafted - at best, for a decade and, at worst, permanently. This is because they are currently the only truly UK-wide party. In order to ever win an election again, they would have to regain seats in Scotland from the SNP, from the Tories in the South of England, as well as defend seats against Plaid Cymru in Wales, UKIP in the North and the Liberal Democrats in urban areas.

Those electorates are so diverse and so easy to target by a party concentrating on only one or a few, they are almost impossible to reconcile. How does one even begin to formulate a policy on immigration that does not alienate the cosmopolitan London leftie while reengaging with enough working class white men in the North? How does one articulate an economic policy that is radical enough for Glasgow and moderate enough for Stevenage?"

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177

houndtang said:

I still have a £10 free bet to use on Betfair Sportsbook and about 10 days to use it. Any tips? Smith?

Might have one on Monday. Don't know if it runs.

FPT

Mr. Topping, thanks I had not in fact seen that video before. Not too many moustaches though amongst, if I am not mistaken, the Irish Guards rehearsing for the Troop at Chelsea Barracks in the early-mid sixties.

Not a bad bunch the IG, second to the Grenadiers of course but in all respects along way ahead of the rest of the pack.

MarkSenior said:

I see that on the previous thread scoffers at Lib Dem performance in " Pointless Parish by elections" suddenly take an interest in the Conservative performance in McDuff by sea and Ambridge .

Scottish Tory Surges are not to be ignored...................

Corbynistas now alleging that lead judge is a zionist with an axe to grind.

Pass the popcorn.

HurstLlama said:

FPT

Mr. Topping, thanks I had not in fact seen that video before. Not too many moustaches though amongst, if I am not mistaken, the Irish Guards rehearsing for the Troop at Chelsea Barracks in the early-mid sixties.

Not a bad bunch the IG, second to the Grenadiers of course but in all respects along way ahead of the rest of the pack.

Indeed.

There's a whole series of them on youtube - Guards1, Guards2, etc. Sounds like you might recognise the person at 3'30" on this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gcdSxjV34

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.

I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?

I don't get it either.

It effectively gives Labour (and any other group with rules along similar lines) the right to act in a capricious manner to gerrymander an election result - and the courts will refuse to intervene.

Personally I would have thought the law of the land regarding contracts trumped anything in a party rule book. At least it should.

Labour is not a company and so the relationship is not a consumer/supplier one. When you join a political party you are bound by its rulebook and the Labour rulebook states the NEC sets the rules. It's not as if freezes have not been applied in the past.

Anorak said:

BudG said:

Farcial decision from the High Court

Agreed. Luckily the Court of Appeal has seen sense.

Nothing like court decisions to anger voters.

Like I said I don't like changing the rules mid stream, the courts have changed the rules twice in 2 weeks, it's bad politics to mess with voting rules.

This is a farce, so of course Owen Smith should be behind it.

rottenborough said:

Those electorates are so diverse and so easy to target by a party concentrating on only one or a few, they are almost impossible to reconcile. How does one even begin to formulate a policy on immigration that does not alienate the cosmopolitan London leftie while reengaging with enough working class white men in the North? How does one articulate an economic policy that is radical enough for Glasgow and moderate enough for Stevenage?"

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1177

In answer to the last paragraph:- you don't TRY to formulate a policy on immigration that pleases both London lefties and working-class men from the North. Or atleast, you don't make it one of your headline policies. Throughout the WHOLE PARTY'S HISTORY, Labour's middle-class support and working-class support has been split on cultural issues, but the difference is that past Labour politicians had the sense to realise that, and knew that therefore an economically populist message was the only glue that could hold the wings of their support together.

In the 1960s, Harold Wilson had more sense than to mainly pitch Labour as the party that legalised homosexuality and allowed mass migration from the Commonwealth, since he knew a party that defined itself by those things would be toast in the Hulls of the world. Instead he defined the party as the one who was bringing down people's prices at the local shop, fighting for increased wages, and taxing the greedy rich until the pips squeaked, because those were the only policies Labour had that could command broad support, whereas culturally left policies never have and never will be the basis of a winning party.

OT, but we are now on 6/6/6 medals...

I'm going to predict in the next leadership election, the NEC would limit those having the right to vote to just Owen Smith.

But that might still not give victory to Smith, since there is a chance that there are more than a single person in Labour called Owen Smith.

619 said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/polls-clinton-running-table-key-battlegrounds-n629136

Looks like Hilary will win without Florida or Ohio at the moment.

Looking quite blue on 538. Arizona has gone a light shade of blue too!

SouthamObserver said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.

I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?

I don't get it either.

It effectively gives Labour (and any other group with rules along similar lines) the right to act in a capricious manner to gerrymander an election result - and the courts will refuse to intervene.

Personally I would have thought the law of the land regarding contracts trumped anything in a party rule book. At least it should.

Labour is not a company and so the relationship is not a consumer/supplier one. When you join a political party you are bound by its rulebook and the Labour rulebook states the NEC sets the rules. It's not as if freezes have not been applied in the past.

I didn't say it was a company. But a contractual arrangement does exist between a party and the members (as was shown by the first judgement)

And this freeze (and massive price increase) should have been judged as to whether it was 'reasonable' within the framework of the rules (which Labour forgot to mention at the time of the first case)

And there is a strong case to be made that it was a clear attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election and was not reasonable - particularly in light of the votes for the Mayoral candidates which didn't have to be bought for £25 a go.

It is wrong. Everyone knows it is wrong. But the Appeal Court have relied on one very narrow view of a very poorly written rule - and denied people what was a clearly given role in party democracy.

Labour (and the lawyers) should be ashamed of themselves.

RobD said:

OT, but we are now on 6/6/6 medals...

Devilish good work....

Got to say I think the ruling is rotten.

SouthamObserver said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.

I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?

I don't get it either.

It effectively gives Labour (and any other group with rules along similar lines) the right to act in a capricious manner to gerrymander an election result - and the courts will refuse to intervene.

Personally I would have thought the law of the land regarding contracts trumped anything in a party rule book. At least it should.

Labour is not a company and so the relationship is not a consumer/supplier one. When you join a political party you are bound by its rulebook and the Labour rulebook states the NEC sets the rules. It's not as if freezes have not been applied in the past.

It is taking money under false pretences , NEC should be in the dock for stealing.

JosiasJessop said:

surbiton said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.

Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?

John M was probably in Mars in 2009/2010

Talking of Mars, at the end of next month Elon Musk is due to give details of his planned BFR (Big Fu***ng Rocket) and MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) at the IAC meeting in Mexico.

He wants to have a settlement of one million people on Mars. It may sound ridiculous, but this is Musk we're talking about ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

We've got to go somewhere. Eventually.

This Labour contest process is just farcical.

No, that's not a particularly fresh observation, but it bears repeating about every three seconds. I don't remember politics before the late 90s, but when was it ever this absurd?

Mr. Jessop, a million's a big number but a deal of redundancy is a good idea for a settlement that can't be easily reached. Not only to ensure everything runs smoothly if a few key people get injured, but also to allow it to survive if illness breaks out.

Morris_Dancer said:

Got to say I think the ruling is rotten.

On the basis that they said (I believe) the party's NEC is allowed to set the rules it wants (even presuming the rules are unfair in some way) then it seems relatively sound, if shitty, but then the law is not about what is shitty.

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr. Llama, perhaps your son is heir to the iron throne?

Recessive gene for Highland ancestry? Perhaps you have more in common with JackW or, perish the thought, MalcG than you realise!
Although I once read..... I think in a book abouut escaping from the Nazi’s .... that in Poland Jews are likely to be red-haired. Personally I’ve never met a red-haired Jew. At least AFAIK.

Hurst would be a lucky man if he had some similar blood to myself flowing through his viens , which I am sure he does have given his intelligence and fine tastes. He is a cut above the usual lout on here.

Cheers malc

Rob, You are not one of the mongrels I hasten to add.

Turnip's in the post.....

Charles said:

RobD said:

OT, but we are now on 6/6/6 medals...

Having followed your lead, I noticed that the IOC has banned Kuwait from the Olympics for "government interference in sport" but still thinks it's ok for Russia to participate

What were the specifics of the Kuwait ban? Is the Olympic committee of each country supposed to be independent from government?

JosiasJessop said:

surbiton said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.

Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?

John M was probably in Mars in 2009/2010

Talking of Mars, at the end of next month Elon Musk is due to give details of his planned BFR (Big Fu***ng Rocket) and MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) at the IAC meeting in Mexico.

He wants to have a settlement of one million people on Mars. It may sound ridiculous, but this is Musk we're talking about ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

Well Musk made his fortune by advertising his cars on Wall Street.
But I doubt he is going to find suckers for this.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Absolute fucking state of this

https://twitter.com/dr_chris_jones/status/763772207680151552

Did Ken Livingstone shadow write that?

RobD said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

OT, but we are now on 6/6/6 medals...

Having followed your lead, I noticed that the IOC has banned Kuwait from the Olympics for "government interference in sport" but still thinks it's ok for Russia to participate

What were the specifics of the Kuwait ban? Is the Olympic committee of each country supposed to be independent from government?

The government has the right to dissolve sporting federations (some random news article on the "Independent Olympic Athlete" who won a gold medal)

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

surbiton said:

rcs1000 said:

John_M said:

OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.

Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?

John M was probably in Mars in 2009/2010

Talking of Mars, at the end of next month Elon Musk is due to give details of his planned BFR (Big Fu***ng Rocket) and MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) at the IAC meeting in Mexico.

He wants to have a settlement of one million people on Mars. It may sound ridiculous, but this is Musk we're talking about ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter

We've got to go somewhere. Eventually.

And Musk is going about it in a sane way: almost all his endeavours (SpaceX, Solar City, even Tesla), are associated with his Mars plans. This is no side-project; it is what it's all about.

Why can't we get to Mars? Cost. So make it cheaper. Reuse rockets. Use less powerful but more reliable engines. Start small and build up. Finance through sales.

Though there are potential snags on the way: they have yet to refly any of their landed first stages (though they might fly two later this year), and they've had trouble lifting enough mass to orbit to fulfil their ISS resupply contract.

A big question is whether we can actually reproduce on the one-third gravity of Mars, and how the low gravity will affect development of children. As far as I'm aware, scientists have got no animal to reproduce in zero-G. Will the same be true for 1/3 G?

Get in Katarina.

OldKingCole said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT: Mr. Llama, perhaps your son is heir to the iron throne?

Recessive gene for Highland ancestry? Perhaps you have more in common with JackW or, perish the thought, MalcG than you realise!
Although I once read..... I think in a book abouut escaping from the Nazi’s .... that in Poland Jews are likely to be red-haired. Personally I’ve never met a red-haired Jew. At least AFAIK.

Plenty of them in NYC

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Got to say I think the ruling is rotten.

On the basis that they said (I believe) the party's NEC is allowed to set the rules it wants (even presuming the rules are unfair in some way) then it seems relatively sound, if shitty, but then the law is not about what is shitty.

As they say the Law is an ASS

oxfordsimon said:

SouthamObserver said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

oxfordsimon said:

david_herdson said:

Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.

Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.

I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?

I don't get it either.

It effectively gives Labour (and any other group with rules along similar lines) the right to act in a capricious manner to gerrymander an election result - and the courts will refuse to intervene.

Personally I would have thought the law of the land regarding contracts trumped anything in a party rule book. At least it should.

Labour is not a company and so the relationship is not a consumer/supplier one. When you join a political party you are bound by its rulebook and the Labour rulebook states the NEC sets the rules. It's not as if freezes have not been applied in the past.

I didn't say it was a company. But a contractual arrangement does exist between a party and the members (as was shown by the first judgement)

And this freeze (and massive price increase) should have been judged as to whether it was 'reasonable' within the framework of the rules (which Labour forgot to mention at the time of the first case)

And there is a strong case to be made that it was a clear attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election and was not reasonable - particularly in light of the votes for the Mayoral candidates which didn't have to be bought for £25 a go.

It is wrong. Everyone knows it is wrong. But the Appeal Court have relied on one very narrow view of a very poorly written rule - and denied people what was a clearly given role in party democracy.

Labour (and the lawyers) should be ashamed of themselves.

Three CoA judges - all senior to the original judge - have ruled comprehensively that he was wrong. They know the law better than we do.