politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Signs are that 2017 could be a big Westminster by-election yea

Second! Like REMAIN.....

rcs1000 said:

PlatoSaid said:

ONS
GDP per head grew 0.4% in Q3, while real household spending per head grew 0.6% https://t.co/XSNUu9RUp9

That is the unfortunate fly in the ointment of our GDP numbers; they continue to be driven by too much consumer spending.

How can everyone afford it ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Steve Rotherham in Liverpool is also likely to trigger a by election in another Lab held seat that voted Leave.

Should be fun.

Could be tricky, only a 72% majority there.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Steve Rotherham in Liverpool is also likely to trigger a by election in another Lab held seat that voted Leave.

Should be fun.

Could be tricky, only a 72% majority there.

Personal vote.

Kippers will be very disappointed not to take the seat

No result from Aylesham yet?

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TSE

Breach yes - by election though? I think it's unlikely they will overturn the result.

It'll all come down to the word 'knowingly'

Can you unknowingly overspend £185,000 plus?

If CCHQ was providing manpower and resources then yes, as long as he never asked where the money was coming from.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A Thanet South by election seems nailed on if the rumour I heard that the Tories spent over £200,000 winning that seat.

Thanet South spending limit - £15,016.38

Total declared by Craig Mackinlay and his agent - £14,837.77

How soon is it likely to happen? Farage losing again would be delicious.

Let us assume charges in January, I'd assume a trial around April/May time, trial shouldn't take that long, assuming a conviction, a by-election writ moved in June, by election in September?

Is Thanet South the only seat with such an egregious overspend ?

FPT: "To many in the EU, the British public’s apparent desire to retain free trade while no longer granting freedom of movement will seem like a wish to have their cake and eat it. An alternative view, however, is that many people in the UK – including some who voted ‘Remain’ – reject the EU’s recipe for baking the cake in the first place. For them, freedom of movement as currently implemented in the EU is not a necessary concomitant to free trade.

Ahem - has John Curtice been reading PB. Because I made this precise point back in mid-October - 11. http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/14/cyclefree-with-a-mischievous-suggestion/.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

No result from Aylesham yet?

Easy Labour hold
Lab 460 Con 283

THanks Mark

TSE are you taking odds on a 2017 by-election in South Thanet

Pulpstar said:

He ought to be posthumously executed and not given the dignity of a burial.

Posthumously executing people really just harms the dignity of the people ordering it.

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

PlatoSaid said:

ONS
GDP per head grew 0.4% in Q3, while real household spending per head grew 0.6% https://t.co/XSNUu9RUp9

That is the unfortunate fly in the ointment of our GDP numbers; they continue to be driven by too much consumer spending.

How can everyone afford it ?

Itth a mythtery, as Toyah might say.

http://tinyurl.com/zpaxetb

@TheUnionDivvie Ah cars ! I assumed that anyone who owned a new car had a good amount of money in the bank 8)

Worth noting that if the terrorist had been stopped by two regular police officers in the UK he could have killed them both and escaped.

TSE

On there being one.

SandyRentool said:

Worth noting that if the terrorist had been stopped by two regular police officers in the UK he could have killed them both and escaped.

I'd wager that if our police were routinely armed, most years would see more people killed by police- rightly or wrongly- than by terrorists. It's a tough call.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

Worth noting that if the terrorist had been stopped by two regular police officers in the UK he could have killed them both and escaped.

On the other hand, if police officers were equipped with guns in the UK, there would likely be a number of innocent people killed every year by accident. And there would - from time to time - be occasions when police shot unarmed fleeing suspects in the back.

Like all things in life, it's a question of trade offs.

It would also be difficult for the terrorist to smuggle the weapon into the UK in the first place.

The more guns there are the more guns there are.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

Worth noting that if the terrorist had been stopped by two regular police officers in the UK he could have killed them both and escaped.

On the other hand, if police officers were equipped with guns in the UK, there would likely be a number of innocent people killed every year by accident. And there would - from time to time - be occasions when police shot unarmed fleeing suspects in the back.

Like all things in life, it's a question of trade offs.

It would also be difficult for the terrorist to smuggle the weapon into the UK in the first place.

The more guns there are the more guns there are.

Absolutely, I don't support arming police with guns one bit. Raising the stakes hasn't worked in the US at all.

TwistedFireStopper said:

SandyRentool said:

Worth noting that if the terrorist had been stopped by two regular police officers in the UK he could have killed them both and escaped.

I'd wager that if our police were routinely armed, most years would see more people killed by police- rightly or wrongly- than by terrorists. It's a tough call.

I don't believe that would necessarily be the case, there are plenty of countries that routinely arm their police and yet have very few incidents where firearms are actually used. If we are moving towards a police service made up of graduates we ought to be able to properly train them about the use of force.

I wouldn't favour routinely armed police, but training most police to use firearms and having the firearms in reserve might be a good idea. We currently have no ability to carry out the protective duties that the French police and military are doing during the state of emergency. I think we need to be able to match that.

@glw

4 people have been shot dead by police this year so far.

Are we really saying that that number wouldn't increase substantially?

Max PB. Yes, it's an benign and unforeseen consequence of the post-Hungerford and post-Dunblane legislation that we've had far fewer terrorist attacks in this country than I think would have been the case otherwise.

TwistedFireStopper said:

Looks like the Berlin mass murdering terrorist has been shot and killed in Milan. Good inter EU cooperation, or poor border control?

On current evidence, neither. You can't realistically expect to be able to individually screen everyone moving from one part of a free economy to another so the border control thing isn't relevant, and since this guy's face is on everybody's tellies it shouldn't take a lot of police cooperation for police to try to arrest the guy when they run into him.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

@glw

4 people have been shot dead by police this year so far.

Are we really saying that that number wouldn't increase substantially?

My uncle was shot on duty (PC Peter Guthrie), he was investigating a burglary at a gun shop. So perhaps if gun laws had been tighter back in 1972 (No gun shop) maybe he'd be around today. Certainly the police should not be routinely armed, it creates more danger than it solves.

MaxPB said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Looks like the Berlin mass murdering terrorist has been shot and killed in Milan. Good inter EU cooperation, or poor border control?

Both, embarrassing for the Germans that the Italians got him in the end.

Every xenophobic cliche has just been upended. The brave, clever and efficient Italians have bailed out the timid, indolent and stupid Germans.

Every Hollywood film for 77 years was clearly talking rubbish!

Edit: and in today's other news for Merkel, that may be about to apply to banking as well;

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38412816?client=safari

edmundintokyo said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Looks like the Berlin mass murdering terrorist has been shot and killed in Milan. Good inter EU cooperation, or poor border control?

On current evidence, neither. You can't realistically expect to be able to individually screen everyone moving from one part of a free economy to another so the border control thing isn't relevant, and since this guy's face is on everybody's tellies it shouldn't take a lot of police cooperation for police to try to arrest the guy when they run into him.

That's a fair point, but this case is manna from heaven for EUphobes. It ticks all the boxes. Arab looking fella who is clearly a wrong 'un, allowed to roam around the EU, the Germans know about him, felt his collar a few times, but couldn't get rid of him, the stupid wanted poster with his eyes blocked out, how easy it was for him to give the Germans the slip, and how easy it was for him to travel around the EU as a Most Wanted fella, before finally shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and getting slotted by the Italians in Milan.

It's obviously not that simple, but it makes the EU look weak, naive, and unable to protect it's own citizens.

MaxPB said:

glw said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

SandyRentool said:

Worth noting that if the terrorist had been stopped by two regular police officers in the UK he could have killed them both and escaped.

I'd wager that if our police were routinely armed, most years would see more people killed by police- rightly or wrongly- than by terrorists. It's a tough call.

I don't believe that would necessarily be the case, there are plenty of countries that routinely arm their police and yet have very few incidents where firearms are actually used. If we are moving towards a police service made up of graduates we ought to be able to properly train them about the use of force.

I wouldn't favour routinely armed police, but training most police to use firearms and having the firearms in reserve might be a good idea. We currently have no ability to carry out the protective duties that the French police and military are doing during the state of emergency. I think we need to be able to match that.

I think regular infantry would serve during a state of emergency, we don't have a Gendarmerie.

Yes. There is a hierarchy of aid by the military under the categorisation of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities. Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) would be the appropriate deployment in such a situation.

https://gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk

TwistedFireStopper said:

edmundintokyo said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Looks like the Berlin mass murdering terrorist has been shot and killed in Milan. Good inter EU cooperation, or poor border control?

On current evidence, neither. You can't realistically expect to be able to individually screen everyone moving from one part of a free economy to another so the border control thing isn't relevant, and since this guy's face is on everybody's tellies it shouldn't take a lot of police cooperation for police to try to arrest the guy when they run into him.

That's a fair point, but this case is manna from heaven for EUphobes. It ticks all the boxes. Arab looking fella who is clearly a wrong 'un, allowed to roam around the EU, the Germans know about him, felt his collar a few times, but couldn't get rid of him, the stupid wanted poster with his eyes blocked out, how easy it was for him to give the Germans the slip, and how easy it was for him to travel around the EU as a Most Wanted fella, before finally shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and getting slotted by the Italians in Milan.

iI's obviously not that simple, but it makes the EU look weak, naive, and unable to protect it's own citizens.

The EU looks that way because it's true. It is weak, naive and unable to look after its own. The Polish driver should get a post-humous medal of recognition in Germany for diverting the lorry and forcing it to crash.

@Morris_Dancer

Or perhaps simply because getting from Germany to Italy involves going via either Switzerland, France or Austria.

ydoethur said:

Somebody was asking about Prince Charles being more visible on the last thread.

One way and another, the last few weeks has looked suspiciously like the start of a handing over process.

Which makes me wonder about this reported cold the Queen had. She was feeing unwell so decided not to make a medium length journey by train. OK, fair enough. But she was fit the following day to travel by helicopter? That really doesn't make sense to me. I can imagine no circumstances where somebody would be too ill to travel in comfort at a moderate speed on a luxury train, then immediately after well enough to travel in a rough, noisy and probably cramped helicopter. The advantage however is that it is very quick - so somebody with a long term condition is not away from treatment for long,

Perhaps we're having the ground prepared for an announcement about either her or Prince Philip.

Hopefully Charles had the good sense to abdicate to William quickly. He is a republican's best friend. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada and Australia leave the realm under Charlie's watch. William would be unbelievably popular though, even more than the Queen.

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

Somebody was asking about Prince Charles being more visible on the last thread.

One way and another, the last few weeks has looked suspiciously like the start of a handing over process.

Which makes me wonder about this reported cold the Queen had. She was feeing unwell so decided not to make a medium length journey by train. OK, fair enough. But she was fit the following day to travel by helicopter? That really doesn't make sense to me. I can imagine no circumstances where somebody would be too ill to travel in comfort at a moderate speed on a luxury train, then immediately after well enough to travel in a rough, noisy and probably cramped helicopter. The advantage however is that it is very quick - so somebody with a long term condition is not away from treatment for long,

Perhaps we're having the ground prepared for an announcement about either her or Prince Philip.

Hopefully Charles had the good sense to abdicate to William quickly. He is a republican's best friend. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada and Australia leave the realm under Charlie's watch. William would be unbelievably popular though, even more than the Queen.

Treason!

(Literally)

glw said:

TOPPING said:

Yes. There is a hierarchy of aid by the military under the categorisation of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities. Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) would be the appropriate deployment in such a situation.

https://gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk

The army would likely do a good job, but there is a fundamental difference between a police constable upholding the law and maintaining public order, and a soldier who is trained to fight our enemies being drafted in to fill a gap. If we have no other option, then use the army, but it would probably be better if we didn't have to do so.

Yes but we wouldn't be talking about a police constable, we would be talking about a robocop-type black-clad operative. No pointy hats and ello ello ellos.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

Somebody was asking about Prince Charles being more visible on the last thread.

One way and another, the last few weeks has looked suspiciously like the start of a handing over process.

Which makes me wonder about this reported cold the Queen had. She was feeing unwell so decided not to make a medium length journey by train. OK, fair enough. But she was fit the following day to travel by helicopter? That really doesn't make sense to me. I can imagine no circumstances where somebody would be too ill to travel in comfort at a moderate speed on a luxury train, then immediately after well enough to travel in a rough, noisy and probably cramped helicopter. The advantage however is that it is very quick - so somebody with a long term condition is not away from treatment for long,

Perhaps we're having the ground prepared for an announcement about either her or Prince Philip.

Hopefully Charles had the good sense to abdicate to William quickly. He is a republican's best friend. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada and Australia leave the realm under Charlie's watch. William would be unbelievably popular though, even more than the Queen.

Treason!

(Literally)

I'm just looking out for the long term health of the Monarchy! Republicans everywhere need to be squashed and with the passing of the Queen they will take their opportunity. Maybe they see it and the plan is for the Queen to abdicate to Charles and when she does Charles will abdicate for William who will hold it for the long term.

ThreeQuidder said:

rcs1000 said:

@Morris_Dancer

Or perhaps simply because getting from Germany to Italy involves going via either Switzerland, France or Austria.

Yes, but there are direct trains from Germany to Italy. {I'm inferring, perhaps without justification, that he travelled by train.)

It would be easier to get to France and travel from there. Trains out of Germany would all surely be getting checked.

TOPPING said:

Yes but we wouldn't be talking about a police constable, we would be talking about a robocop-type black-clad operative. No pointy hats and ello ello ellos.

That's because that's essentially all we have, about 5,000 authorised firearms officers out of 120,000 police, or in that ballpark. I think we could do with a lot more, and including "regular" police for emergency situations where we potentially need to guard many, many locations simultaneously.

MaxPB said:

ydoethur said:

Somebody was asking about Prince Charles being more visible on the last thread.

One way and another, the last few weeks has looked suspiciously like the start of a handing over process.

Which makes me wonder about this reported cold the Queen had. She was feeing unwell so decided not to make a medium length journey by train. OK, fair enough. But she was fit the following day to travel by helicopter? That really doesn't make sense to me. I can imagine no circumstances where somebody would be too ill to travel in comfort at a moderate speed on a luxury train, then immediately after well enough to travel in a rough, noisy and probably cramped helicopter. The advantage however is that it is very quick - so somebody with a long term condition is not away from treatment for long,

Perhaps we're having the ground prepared for an announcement about either her or Prince Philip.

Hopefully Charles had the good sense to abdicate to William quickly. He is a republican's best friend. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada and Australia leave the realm under Charlie's watch. William would be unbelievably popular though, even more than the Queen.

I disagree. Charles may have some odd ideas and a messy love life but he is conscientious. Remember Edward VII was widely written off before he became King, but he worked hard, became if anything more popular than his mother and was very effective in some fields, especially in foreign affairs.

TwistedFireStopper said:

That's a fair point, but this case is manna from heaven for EUphobes. It ticks all the boxes. Arab looking fella who is clearly a wrong 'un, allowed to roam around the EU, the Germans know about him, felt his collar a few times, but couldn't get rid of him, the stupid wanted poster with his eyes blocked out, how easy it was for him to give the Germans the slip, and how easy it was for him to travel around the EU as a Most Wanted fella, before finally shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and getting slotted by the Italians in Milan.

It's obviously not that simple, but it makes the EU look weak, naive, and unable to protect it's own citizens.

I look at it like this, and you are free to disagree:

The cost of securing long land borders is non-negligible, either in terms of the amount of manpower required, and in terms of the frictional costs on people in getting from a-to-b. Not only that, but long land borders are inherently porous. You can ski from Italy into Switzerland, for example, and no fence or wall is going to stop that.

So, as a country you have a choice: do you want to take the significant economic costs, inconvenience law abiding citizens, and which may still have only a limited effect on terrorists' ability to cross borders.

It's like this: we could cut road deaths 40% over night by dramatically reducing speed limits in the UK. But as a society there's been a tacit acceptance that the current limits have an acceptable casualty vs economics vs convenience trade off. The same is true of terrorism and crime.

In the early 1980s, with a major terrorist problem in Northern Ireland, and with IRA members flitting over the (Schengen-like) border without difficulty, Mrs Thatcher faced the same choice. Impose border controls and build a wall - with serious economic consequences on an already economically depressed region - or allow the terrorists to easily cross the border. They decided that the border could not be efficiently sealed, and therefore the costs were not worth it.

Now, you are free to say the countries of the Schengen zone (which, of course, includes Switzerland, who voted in a referendum to join), should prioritise prevention of terrorism. But I suspect they'll make the same calculation Mrs Thatcher made, and - except where there are obvious choke points that can be easily policed - leave the borders open.

TOPPING said:

glw said:

TOPPING said:

Yes. There is a hierarchy of aid by the military under the categorisation of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities. Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) would be the appropriate deployment in such a situation.

https://gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk

The army would likely do a good job, but there is a fundamental difference between a police constable upholding the law and maintaining public order, and a soldier who is trained to fight our enemies being drafted in to fill a gap. If we have no other option, then use the army, but it would probably be better if we didn't have to do so.

Yes but we wouldn't be talking about a police constable, we would be talking about a robocop-type black-clad operative. No pointy hats and ello ello ellos.

My mate used to be an Armed response copper about 10 years ago. Then, he had a glock pistol, a taser, some pepper spray, and a HK machine pistol with a clear magazine and, I think, 9 bullets in the magazine. He always said that he wasn't trained to be in a gunfight, that wasn't what he was trained for. It was a double tap to the centre mass to stop an armed baddie, usually wielding a knife. He still talks to his old buddies. He wouldn't recognise they're training now.

ThreeQuidder said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

edmundintokyo said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

On current evidence, neither. You can't realistically expect to be able to individually screen everyone moving from one part of a free economy to another so the border control thing isn't relevant, and since this guy's face is on everybody's tellies it shouldn't take a lot of police cooperation for police to try to arrest the guy when they run into him.

That's a fair point, but this case is manna from heaven for EUphobes. It ticks all the boxes. Arab looking fella who is clearly a wrong 'un, allowed to roam around the EU, the Germans know about him, felt his collar a few times, but couldn't get rid of him, the stupid wanted poster with his eyes blocked out, how easy it was for him to give the Germans the slip, and how easy it was for him to travel around the EU as a Most Wanted fella, before finally shouting "Allahu Akbar!" and getting slotted by the Italians in Milan.

It's obviously not that simple, but it makes the EU look weak, naive, and unable to protect it's own citizens.

Not so much "makes it look" but "shows that it is".

Exactly so. It is all very well talking about the advantages of FoM - and there are plenty - but it also allows freedom of movement of terrorists. Now we cannot stop all such movement. But one thing we can do - and should be doing - is not letting such people into Europe in the first place.

Tunisia is not a country from which people need to claim asylum.

Someone who comes to Europe, commits arson and goes to prison should have been sent back to Tunisia not allowed to roam freely around Europe.

Someone who was on the watch list of the German security services and was heard announcing that he wanted to be a suicide bomber should have been picked up.

Someone who lost his claim for asylum (why was such a claim even entertained?) should not have been given "leave to remain". Why, in God's name, would you give leave to remain to a convicted criminal who has no claim to asylum? What possible advantage to Europe - or any country within it - is there in having such a person within its borders?

At all stages the authorities have been weak, have turned a blind eye to the risks posed and have passed the problem onto others.

I have some sympathy for the German intelligence services. Their chancellor allows into the country a mass of people from areas of great instability, at a time when terrorism and extremism is rife and when terror organisations have said they will try to smuggle operatives in, in a short space of time and with little ability to do any sort of vetting and they are then expected to protect the German people from the consequences of a hurried and ill-thought out decision.

Plato (50,000 posts)

"Tomorrow's @theheraldsun front page tonight #springst #auspol https://t.co/ckqUVAgCdC"

Do you belong to some fascist or islamaphobic website so you can distribute this sort of shit before anyone else?

glw said:

TOPPING said:

Yes. There is a hierarchy of aid by the military under the categorisation of Military Aid to the Civil Authorities. Military Aid to the Civil Power (MACP) would be the appropriate deployment in such a situation.

https://gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk/2010-to-2015-government-policy-armed-forces-support-for-activities-in-the-uk

The army would likely do a good job, but there is a fundamental difference between a police constable upholding the law and maintaining public order, and a soldier who is trained to fight our enemies being drafted in to fill a gap. If we have no other option, then use the army, but it would probably be better if we didn't have to do so.

Yep. The army don't have an illustrious history in acting as policemen; the roles are fundamentally different.

If they are called to perform such duty, you have to acknowledge that there is a high chance of mistakes. Hence, they should only be used when you can be fairly sure (not certain) that the risk they are on the streets to prevent is greater than the risks from mistakes.

Much of the above depends on the type of emergency as well: if it is one where the population is in favour of them being there, the risks are much reduced over a NI-style situation.

As an aside, this morning's news is one of the reasons I'm nervous about stop and search being weakened. Police should be able to stop anyone on a hunch, without having to have perfectly good cause. On the other hand, individual policemen doing it too frequently, or for reasons other than public safety, should be weeded out.

It's a difficult call.

I always considered the German police to be efficient robots and the Italian plod to be the Keystone cops, more interested in drinking wine and chatting up women. Perhaps the stereotypes were totally wrong.

Not good news for Merkel despite her doing and saying the right things now.

CD13 said:

I always considered the German police to be efficient robots and the Italian plod to be the Keystone cops, more interested in drinking wine and chatting up women. Perhaps the stereotypes were totally wrong.

Not good news for Merkel despite her doing and saying the right things now.

On the other hand, "Europe" caught him.

foxinsoxuk said:

The problem was that the Tunisians refused to accept him ashe had no papers, a fairly common spanner in the works for deportations. Deporting to MENA countries is famously difficult.

It is not entirely surprising that he went on the run to Italy, having lived there for 4 years before moving to Germany.

Handcuffs and stick him on a boat. Fuck what the Tunisians say and what any human rights bullshit lawyers say.

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

@MaxPB I doubt Charles will abdicate, the monarchy isn't a popularity contest

Unfortunately it is, and if they want to keep the realm in tact then they will have realised that Wills and Kate are the key to keeping everything going. The UK will never dump the Monarchy, but Canada and Australia might.

Australia will be a republic within 5 years of QE2 going under the sod.

Hedge End Wildern (Eastleigh) result:
LDEM: 64.5% (+22.5)
CON: 25.2% (-2.4)
LAB: 10.3% (-1.7)
LDem HOLD

Cranleigh West (Waverley) result:
CON: 58.7% (+2.9)
LDEM: 29.1% (-1.0)
UKIP: 12.1% (+12.1)
Con HOLD.

Aylesham ward of Dover Council
Lab HOLD

Mr Topping,

"On the other hand, "Europe" caught him."

Hmm ... Came to Italy from Tunisia, served a long jail sentence, moved over to Germany and applied for asylum (who from?), watched by security forces until they got bored with him, commits atrocity, wanders back to Italy despite Germany's best efforts, and is shot dead in a "fortunate" meeting with Police. It seems that the EU was his playground.

If this were a black and white film by Mack Sennet, we could all applaud.

Yes, I know you were joking.