politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If UKIP can’t crack FPTP soon it’ll find itself almost without

TheScreamingEagles said:

I like Shadsy's idea.


@LadPolitics‏: How about we scrap general elections and just have a rolling schedule of 3 "by-elections" every Thursday?

Quite agree. Every by-election is its own individual puzzle to figure out - they are good brain and betting exercises.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We might be being a bit harsh on UKIP.

FPTP screws parties that aren't Labour or Tories.

The SDP back in 1983, with much more electoral nous and incumbents got absolutely shafted by FPTP.

Not really. If UKIP had lost by say within 5% then I think perhaps Stoke North would be in play for them at the next GE (Maybe a couple of others). They didn't do that - 13% behind was a horrible result.

I said might.

But if you can't beat Gareth Snell in the capital of Brexit, then just exactly where do UKIP win?

I guess a Leave seat where they were a clear second to Labour at the last GE with the Tories nowhere... if one exists!

Dagenham?

UKIP too far behind there. Hartlepool might be the one seat UKIP could win vs Labour. But not with Nuttall.

If Farage ran for the seat he might just make it there.

...and not too far in front of the Conservatives in Dag and Rainham either actually

Maybe the time has come to call it a day, or at least scale down. The BNP will probably make a comeback though

Agree. Same message.

Well its not is it?

I have plenty of experience of meeting UKIP people at events and I never heard any racism at all. I doubt people who went to BNP meetings could say the same. It's people like you trying to conflate peoples feelings of isolation and despair with race hate that cause the problems in society

They are both anti-immigrant. The rest is details.

I doubt your experience met with any reasoned sovereignty argument.

I could be wrong about your experiences of course.

You are just being needlessly provocative. The BNP believe that people that are not white are inferior to white people, there is no one I have met in UKIP and nothing I have seen from UKIP that would infer they believed that, and that difference is not "just detail" it is pivotal.

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪@MrHarryCole: Ken Livingstone: "A Jeremy Corbyn government is not going to be like the load of old rubbish we had from Blair."‬

ie an actual government.

In fairness a Corbyn government could only come about in dreamland, so I imagine it would be pretty awesome.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I like Shadsy's idea.


@LadPolitics‏: How about we scrap general elections and just have a rolling schedule of 3 "by-elections" every Thursday?

I've pushed for that for some time, albeit I'd like an added twist. The three seats that come up are completely random. So no MP knows if he's in power for a few months, or ten years.

Best of all, it would create an enormous number of betting opportunities.

And it would improve the governance of the country enormously, although that's a fringe benefit.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I like Shadsy's idea.


@LadPolitics‏: How about we scrap general elections and just have a rolling schedule of 3 "by-elections" every Thursday?

Quite agree. Every by-election is its own individual puzzle to figure out - they are good brain and betting exercises.

That said, last night didn't do much for my sleep or productivity today.

Pulpstar said:

SimonStClare said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I like Shadsy's idea.

@LadPolitics‏: How about we scrap general elections and just have a rolling schedule of 3 "by-elections" every Thursday?

A move motivated more by Shadsy’s Christmas bonus, than practicality me thinks…

I expect he made a tidy profit on Stoke.
Not sure about Copeland.

Especially when I thought the 3/1 on the Lab double was a massive rick by him.

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Unison backed Corbyn last year:
https://twitter.com/daveprentis/status/835061024843784192

That's quite interesting. It does suggest that trade union support for Corbyn is not absolute, but dependent upon him showing that he can somehow turn this dire situation around (not that he will). But if that is typical it also shows that his support base is, for the moment, still intact.

Take that, together with the frankly delusional reaction to the results were seeing from the nailed on Corbynites, and everything still suggests that Corbyn still needs to be given a bit more rope - Autumn 2018, with the potential for a new leader to have much the same effect as the successor to Thatcher had on the Tory vote from 1990 to 1992. Nick Palmer is the sort of person that might be used as a barometer - i.e. a Labour member capable of changing their mind who needs to see the light before a challenge stands more than a remote chance. He hasn't, yet, from what I can glean.

Yep - 2018 has always looked the likely time to me. That said, the Copeland result confirms the opinion poll ratings. If the same thing happens at the May council elections, it could just be that things get brought forward. And, of course, if there is a miracle and McCluskey loses the Unite leadership, then it is game over.

I think Nick will be a Corbyn supporter until the day after Corbyn is no longer leader; at which point he will say that he was always the wrong man for the job :-)

There is an outside chance that an Autumn 2017 challenge following very poor shire and metropolitan mayoral results could depose Corbyn. But there is a huge risk that Corbyn would hang on and the chances of him going before 2020 would then be further diminished. I see no point in risking an early challenge.

I just hope there's not another Hilary Benn itching to railroad the PLP into another premature battle. Let's hope that the PLP acts like Kutuzov and plays the long game.

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Mrs May would resign as Prime Minister, but remain as leader of the Conservative Party. The Queen would ask Mrs May (as leader of the largest party in the Commons) if she had the confidence of the House of Commons, and she would say she did not. The Queen would then ask Mr Corbyn, who would likely say that he did not. (Although it would be entertaining if he said he did, and then failed to get his Queen's speech passed.)

But after Mrs May tells HM that the Commons has no confidence in her, she will have to resign as PM, HM will ask her who to call next. Who does she tell the Queen to call?

The FTPA was written to scupper the Conservatives walking away from the 2010-15 coalition, and that job it did very well. It can't deal with the current situation, where an incoming PM has a massive bounce in the polls, a small Commons majority and some serious business to do - from which an increased public mandate would go down very well.

I say she should try and get 2/3 of the Commons to vote for an election, but if she doesn't get it then carry on watching the party opposite implode, hopefully with a few more by-election wins or defections along the way.

The PM can't *tell* HM who to call; it's at the monarch's discretion. The outgoing PM can offer advice but this isn't the formal 'advice' she's obliged to follow; more like soundings to an informed observer.

However, who the queen would call in such circumstances would be interesting. She'd be placed in a difficult position. On the one hand, precedent on a lost confidence motion suggests she should call the LotO; on the other, the Tories still have a majority and precedent there is that she should in the first instance see whether an alternative Tory could command a majority (which they couldn't). If Corbyn accepted the commission, he'd become PM at least for a short time. Would he too be obliged to resign / be dismissed if (when) he failed to achieve a vote of confidence or would he be allowed to continue as PM through the election campaign? If not, a return of May would be the only option - but that too would be controversial given her refusal to serve under any other circumstance.

If May did want an early dissolution, going for a Commons motion would be the best bet, particularly if she can hang it off the back of the Lords doing something controversial over A50.

Who would actually make the 'real' call in the circumstances as to who to err call. I know formally it is the Queen, but which palace official or civil servant makes the real decision ?

Ultimately, it'd be the Queen herself. she might well take advice from the Lord Chamberlain, the Speaker, constitutional experts, party grandees and others but in the final event, it is and would be her call.

‪@smashmorePH: Labour campaign chief Ian Lavery: "This wasn't in any way shape or form an election on the leadership of the Labour party."‬

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪@MrHarryCole: Ken Livingstone: "A Jeremy Corbyn government is not going to be like the load of old rubbish we had from Blair."‬

ie an actual government.

In fairness a Corbyn government could only come about in dreamland, so I imagine it would be pretty awesome.

For suckers, Ladbrokes are offering 9/2 on dreamland.

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, for @AndyJS

It's not possible to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act by a simple vote in the Commons. It would require primary legislation through both Houses of the (Sovereign) Parliament. The problem would be in the Lords, it's quite possible the Parliament Act would be needed to get it through.

The alternative provision is for 2/3 +1 of the total elected Commons to vote for a motion that Parliament be dissolved and an election held. This requires 434 votes in favour.

It's not 2/3+1; it's 2/3rds. 2/3+1 would be 435, as 2/3rds of 650 is 433.3 and the '+1' raises that to 433.3: to achieve that requires 435.

I dislike this 'n%+1' terminology as it's nearly always wrong. The correct formulation is 'more than 50%'.

More than 2/3, I'm with you. Will get another coffee, or maybe it's beer o'clock?

Sorry. I'm in a pedantic mood. Too little sleep this week (though my thanks to my baby for waking me just in time for the Copeland result last night).

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

SimonStClare said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I like Shadsy's idea.

@LadPolitics‏: How about we scrap general elections and just have a rolling schedule of 3 "by-elections" every Thursday?

A move motivated more by Shadsy’s Christmas bonus, than practicality me thinks…

I expect he made a tidy profit on Stoke.
Not sure about Copeland.

Especially when I thought the 3/1 on the Lab double was a massive rick by him.

With hindsight:

Lab should have been 7-4 at most in Copeland perhaps ?
& 1-4 in Stoke.

So 3-1 was a good bet I think.

And we can start rejoicing that the disgusting stain of UKIP will be removed from national politics.

David_Evershed said:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

Charterlands (South Hams) result:
LDEM: 46.1% (+46.1)
CON: 39.3% (-25.0)
LAB: 10.7% (+10.7)
GRN: 3.9% (-15.6)
No Ind unlike previous.
LIB DEM gain from CON

Barton (Kettering) result:
LDEM: 57.0% (+57.0)
CON: 29.8% (-19.3)
UKIP: 9.4% (-14.1)
GRN: 3.7% (-3.5)
No Labour unlike previous.
LIB DEM gain from CON


Epping Forest
Chigwell Village
CON 76.0% (+13.6)
LDEM 24.0% (+20.5)
CON hold

Auchentennach Fine Pies thanks local by-election voters .... constituency by-election voters less so ....

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We might be being a bit harsh on UKIP.

FPTP screws parties that aren't Labour or Tories.

The SDP back in 1983, with much more electoral nous and incumbents got absolutely shafted by FPTP.

Not really. If UKIP had lost by say within 5% then I think perhaps Stoke North would be in Maybe a couple of others). They didn't do that - 13% behind was a horrible result.

I said might.

But if you can't beat Gareth Snell in the capital of Brexit, then just exactly where do UKIP win?

I guess a Leave seat where they were a clear second to Labour at the last GE with the Tories nowhere... if one exists!

Dagenham?

UKIP too far behind there. Hartlepool might be the one seat UKIP could win vs Labour. But not with Nuttall.

If Farage ran for the seat he might just make it there.

...and not too far in front of the Conservatives in Dag and Rainham either actually

Maybe the time has come to call it a day, or at least scale down. The BNP will probably make a comeback though

Agree. Same message.

Well its not is it?

I have plenty of experience of meeting UKIP people at events and I never heard any racism at all. I doubt people who went to BNP meetings could say the same. It's people like you trying to conflate peoples feelings of isolation and despair with race hate that cause the problems in society

They are both anti-immigrant. The rest is details.

I doubt your experience met with any reasoned sovereignty argument.

I could be wrong about your experiences of course.

You are just being needlessly provocative. Thed that, and that difference is not "just detail" it is pivotal.

Don't fall off the pin while you're dancing.

If it makes you feel good about yourself to call everyone racist , don't let me stop you having fun, but to infer that the BNP and UKIP share the same anti immigrant view is completely crazy, and pointing out the significant difference is not dancing on the head of a pin, it is correcting your falsehoods

It has got to the stage now where tv shows are made about the danger of white wash views like yours to society

Both are anti-immigration.

The BNP because it doesn't believe non-ethnic white Europeans can be British. UKIP is anti-immigration because.. because.. Well I don't know why.

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

But after Mrs May tells HM that the Commons has no confidence in her, she will have to resign as PM, HM will ask her who to call next. Who does she tell the Queen to call?

Wrong. She remains as PM until someone who does have the confidence of the House can be found. If there is no such person, she remains as PM and an election is held.

But does that still hold under the FTPA? There is a period of two weeks during which a new PM can be found and a motion of confidence passed. Can the Tories all really just do nothing for a fortnight without Corbyn getting a look in, yet leaving Mrs May as PM?

One thing for sure is that HM won't want to get herself involved in the mess, if at all possible.

Another thing that could happen here would be that some audacious *Tory* steps up and offers to try to form a government...

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

But after Mrs May tells HM that the Commons has no confidence in her, she will have to resign as PM, HM will ask her who to call next. Who does she tell the Queen to call?

Wrong. She remains as PM until someone who does have the confidence of the House can be found. If there is no such person, she remains as PM and an election is held.

But does that still hold under the FTPA? There is a period of two weeks during which a new PM can be found and a motion of confidence passed. Can the Tories all really just do nothing for a fortnight without Corbyn getting a look in, yet leaving Mrs May as PM?

One thing for sure is that HM won't want to get herself involved in the mess, if at all possible.

Another thing that could happen here would be that some audacious *Tory* steps up and offers to try to form a government...

Might his first name be George?

Chris_A said:

And we can start rejoicing that the disgusting stain of UKIP will be removed from national politics.

...after they changed the country to the way they wanted it

Liam Young:

"For a governing party to gain a constituency from the sitting opposition at a time when the country is in crisis over Brexit and the NHS is being decimated is..."

..."evidently worrying."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-copeland-defeat-by-election-stoke-ukip-tory-conservative-victory-problem-a7597141.html

The level of delusion on display in Momentum etc is breathtaking.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

FPT

SouthamObserver said:

Unison backed Corbyn last year:
https://twitter.com/daveprentis/status/835061024843784192

That's quite interesting. It does suggest that trade union support for Corbyn is not absolute, but dependent upon him showing that he can somehow turn this dire situation around (not that he will). But if that is typical it also shows that his support base is, for the moment, still intact.

Take that, together with the frankly delusional reaction to the results were seeing from the nailed on Corbynites, and everything still suggests that Corbyn still needs to be given a bit more rope - Autumn 2018, with the potential for a new leader to have much the same effect as the successor to Thatcher had on the Tory vote from 1990 to 1992. Nick Palmer is the sort of person that might be used as a barometer - i.e. a Labour member capable of changing their mind who needs to see the light before a challenge stands more than a remote chance. He hasn't, yet, from what I can glean.

... Let's hope that the PLP acts like Kutuzov and plays the long game.

Whilst I see what your getting at I am not sure Kutuzov is a happy analogy. Did not his long game consist of largely ceding ground (of which he had lots) to his opponents whilst running a scorched earth policy. Labour don't seem to have that much political ground to concede, burning their bridges behind them is probably not sensible and sure as heck there is no General Winter riding to their rescue.

Stark_Dawning said:

Yes, UKIP must now disband, if only for its own sense of pride. It was never really a proper political party. It served as this strange pseudo-party to which hard-right Tories could threaten to defect, or indeed 'defect', in order to terrify Dave into promising an EU referendum. (Witness how many of its 'defectors' are returning to the Tory fold now the project has been completed.) In that sense I feel a sorry for Nuttall and the other committed UKIP supporters - they genuinely seemed to think they were involved in something authentic.

It achieved it's goal. We are leaving the EU, the Tories listen to people outside the metropolis, Labour are unelectable, and the LDs are back to being cosy nothingness.

Just like the old days!

Stark_Dawning said:

Yes, UKIP must now disband, if only for its own sense of pride. It was never really a proper political party. It served as this strange pseudo-party to which hard-right Tories could threaten to defect, or indeed 'defect', in order to terrify Dave into promising an EU referendum. (Witness how many of its 'defectors' are returning to the Tory fold now the project has been completed.) In that sense I feel a sorry for Nuttall and the other committed UKIP supporters - they genuinely seemed to think they were involved in something authentic.

Nah, May is going to be rowing hard for a new moderate position, albeit dressed up as hard BrExit, over the next year and the kippers will be right back in business.

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

FPT, for @AndyJS

It's not possible to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act by a simple vote in the Commons. It would require primary legislation through both Houses of the (Sovereign) Parliament. The problem would be in the Lords, it's quite possible the Parliament Act would be needed to get it through.

The alternative provision is for 2/3 +1 of the total elected Commons to vote for a motion that Parliament be dissolved and an election held. This requires 434 votes in favour.

It's not 2/3+1; it's 2/3rds. 2/3+1 would be 435, as 2/3rds of 650 is 433.3 and the '+1' raises that to 433.3: to achieve that requires 435.

I dislike this 'n%+1' terminology as it's nearly always wrong. The correct formulation is 'more than 50%'.

More than 2/3, I'm with you. Will get another coffee, or maybe it's beer o'clock?

Sorry. I'm in a pedantic mood. Too little sleep this week (though my thanks to my baby for waking me just in time for the Copeland result last night).

Ha, no worries, at least you got to see the result. I had one too many after the theatre last night and slept through it all - despite the four hour time difference!

isam said:

Chris_A said:

And we can start rejoicing that the disgusting stain of UKIP will be removed from national politics.

...after they changed the country to the way they wanted it

Very true without UKIp it would not have happened and that is the thanks they give you.May for the next two years at least in total control.

AlastairMeeks said:

The knives are out:

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/835107834882834432

They were a one man band. Super Nige was a one off, an impossible act to follow., yesterday proved that once and for all.

By election Con/Lab swing this parliament so far.

https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/835110666113536000

I thought Richmond was appropriate to include as Zac was effectively the incumbent Tory. Batley & Spen really was different.

Watching that clown Ian lavery on TDP. Christ, it's no wonder Labour areas stay poor with that calibre of idiot representing them at Westminster.

The key to UKIPs future or lack of it is the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. It is highly likely, though not certain, that this will have been achieved by 2020. If that is the case we will be left with a fringe group moaning about whether the trade deal we sign with the EU "gives too much away" or whether there is some technical loss of sovereignty by our agreements to co-operate on security, extradition etc etc. I find it vanishingly unlikely that more than 5% of the population will have any interest in such matters and even fewer of them will be inclined to vote on it.

So the real question is what happens to UKIPs 4m 2015 votes. Some will undoubtedly go to DNV because UKIP has reached parts of the populace that other parties choose to ignore. Some will no doubt go on to the next NOTA which might, bizarrely, once again be the Lib Dems. But what Copeland and indeed the comments of @Isam on here show is that a significant part are likely to favour the Conservatives. Stoke is as significant as Copeland in that respect, arguably more so, because there is a large UKIP vote to squeeze which will put Labour under considerable pressure.

We are seeing some of this in the current polling but I am not sure it is all in yet. I expect over this Parliament, provided the government delivers Brexit, the UKIP share to diminish and the Tory share to rise even higher than it is now. The consequences for Labour of this consolidation of the rightish vote are likely to be profound. Labour are in a perilous position but are still going around with their thumbs in their ears denying reality.

Jason said:

Watching that clown Ian lavery on TDP. Christ, it's no wonder Labour areas stay poor with that calibre of idiot representing them at Westminster.

Can't resist.... Can't resist....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLcwhgrxTWs

Stark_Dawning said:

Yes, UKIP must now disband, if only for its own sense of pride. It was never really a proper political party. It served as this strange pseudo-party to which hard-right Tories could threaten to defect, or indeed 'defect', in order to terrify Dave into promising an EU referendum. (Witness how many of its 'defectors' are returning to the Tory fold now the project has been completed.) In that sense I feel a sorry for Nuttall and the other committed UKIP supporters - they genuinely seemed to think they were involved in something authentic.

Nuttall was also a Tory.

An economically left, socially conservative party could definitely cause Labour all kinds of problems, but UKIP is not that party and never will be. Labour is going to be the official opposition for years to come and that means that, at some stage in the future, it will become the government again.

A different voting system would change all that (it's hard to believe that either the Tories or UKIP would not have won Stoke with either AV or STV, for example), but that will not happen.

Sandpit said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Sandpit said:

LOL, but someone would be able to tie that up in judicial review for months. It would be easy to argue that the bill is unconstitutional as it's a deliberate attempt to circumvent checks and balances placed on the Executive by the legislature (to use a bit of American terminology). It's quite likely the Speaker would refuse to allow such a bill to be brought forward at all.

The circumvention would be being permitted by the legislature in passing the single line act. This is what consitutional expert Robert Hazell thinks:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-theresa-may-actually-call-one-a7132846.html

But the Government needn’t get into this, he says.

“It could be literally a one clause bill saying ‘notwithstanding the Fixed Term Parliament’s Act 2011 the next election shall be held on x date’,” he explains. The FTPA would remain in place, but be bypassed.

Thus, Britain’s doctrine of parliamentary supremacy saves the day for the Government. As with a self-no confidence vote, this might look underhand, but it would be completely within the rules

Hmm, I think there would be plenty more constitutional experts who would rule that approach out of order. Many of whom have seats in the Lords.

House of Lords votes down a bill passed by the Commons calling for a General Election, nope, cant see any danger of a constitutional crisis there at all

How does one attach a photo please?

Jason said:

Watching that clown Ian lavery on TDP. Christ, it's no wonder Labour areas stay poor with that calibre of idiot representing them at Westminster.

Yes and he should learn to pronounce Nuclear correctly. It is not nucular.

Off-topic:

Just run my first ever half-marathon. The furthest I've ever run before is nine miles a few weeks ago, and I set out to do 5.5 miles this morning. Once there I felt good, so thought I'd continue to 10k. Felt good after that, so thought I'd try to beat my best distance. At nine miles, thought that I might as well get to ten.

Then I 'accidentally' headed in a loop away from home, so it was 13.2 miles by the time I got back.

Woohoo!

2 hours 31 minutes, so a very slow time. But I'm very, very happy. Not bad for someone who was told he'd never walk properly again! (I treat that particular surgeon with a certain amount of contempt).

I can really recommend couch-to-5k programs for people who think they cannot run. They break you into it very slowly, in such a way that you barely get very out of breath. What's more, they can make it fun.

OllyT said:

isam said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Yes, UKIP must now disband, if only for its own sense of pride. It was never really a proper political party. It served as this strange pseudo-party to which hard-right Tories could threaten to defect, or indeed 'defect', in order to terrify Dave into promising an EU referendum. (Witness how many of its 'defectors' are returning to the Tory fold now the project has been completed.) In that sense I feel a sorry for Nuttall and the other committed UKIP supporters - they genuinely seemed to think they were involved in something authentic.

It achieved it's goal. We are leaving the EU, the Tories listen to people outside the metropolis, Labour are unelectable, and the LDs are back to being cosy nothingness.

Just like the old days!

But if you strip away the tribal party stuff, and the rhetoric aimed at the faithful what difference has it made?

Labour left office 7 years ago and for a centrist Blairite sort of voter I am struggling to think of any change that has horrified me - have we rolled back devolution, reintroduced fox-hunting or an hereditary HoL, returned to Section 28 on LGBT rights, done away with the minimum wage?

If you see politics in football terms then if you follow Blue City rather than Red United then you can cheer and hoot at the opposition but what practical difference has there been - even the Tory mantra of sound finances has gone out the window as deficits continue and the National Debt rises inexorably.

Well I quite obviously don't see politics in football terms as I have voted for three different parties this decade! We are leaving the EU, that is the difference UKIP made, and the one that concerned me most, so I am quite happy too.

tlg86 said:

nunu said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075244

Going on what Cummings wrote, this isn't much of a surprise.

Although I'd argue that Leave "outgunning" Remain based purely on the metric of donations to the public is misleading at best.

(Although it does amuse me that the donations were 52%/48% in Leave's favour)

SimonStClare said:

Cyclefree said:

How does one attach a photo please?

Afternoon Ms Cyclefree – if the photo is on the net, just cut'n'paste the URL location and embed. If it is a photo on your PC, you’ll need to upload to a social media site.

Ah OK thanks. Am not on social media so you will all have to do without the sight of Mrs May campaigning amongst an enthusiastic crowd in the main (the only) square in Millom, a place even more remote than Whitehaven and right at the bottom of the Copeland constituency.

Whatever you may think of her, the fact that she is willing to make this sort of effort speaks well of her.

Now, all she has to do is stop those bloody pylons being plastered all across the Whicham valley.........

Cyclefree said:

SimonStClare said:

Cyclefree said:

How does one attach a photo please?

Afternoon Ms Cyclefree – if the photo is on the net, just cut'n'paste the URL location and embed. If it is a photo on your PC, you’ll need to upload to a social media site.

Ah OK thanks. Am not on social media so you will all have to do without the sight of Mrs May campaigning amongst an enthusiastic crowd in the main (the only) square in Millom, a place even more remote than Whitehaven and right at the bottom of the Copeland constituency.

Whatever you may think of her, the fact that she is willing to make this sort of effort speaks well of her.

Now, all she has to do is stop those bloody pylons being plastered all across the Whicham valley.........

Email it to me and I'll upload it on here.

Ishmael_Z said:

Are you making the mistake of buying it ready prepped? Much of the fun is in popping it which creates a kind of gunfight at the ok corral sound effect.

Sounds fun, as long as you don't have to eat it afterwards.

ThreeQuidder said:

Sandpit said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Applying the Copeland changes to the 2015 result in Baxter gives Con maj 150 (old boundaries), 148 (new boundaries).

Adding in a 4 point further swing "back", as someone suggested overnight, gives 226 or 234...

A majority of 234 on the new boundaries would be completely epic - 417 seats out of 600

Not Con gain Bootle, but Con gain Bolsover...

Is Dennis Skinner standing at the next election? Imagine him losing to a Tory...

So the majority of people in Stoke who, we are told, feel isolated, who feel that politicians don't reflect their views who are left behind did what all like-minded souls do in that situation - stayed at home and didn't bother to vote.

Surely, with the choice of candidate in this by-election ranging from left-wing Labour, liberal pro-European, UKIP through to the party of Government, they could have found something to justify a trip to the polling station. I would suggest that the problems that lie behind the reason they feel forgotten lies not with politics as a whole.

Like so much in today's society we just have to accept that a significant number of people simply use their status as the forgotten as a crutch - blaming their own apathy on a convenient scapegoat.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cyclefree said:

SimonStClare said:

Cyclefree said:

How does one attach a photo please?

Afternoon Ms Cyclefree – if the photo is on the net, just cut'n'paste the URL location and embed. If it is a photo on your PC, you’ll need to upload to a social media site.

Ah OK thanks. Am not on social media so you will all have to do without the sight of Mrs May campaigning amongst an enthusiastic crowd in the main (the only) square in Millom, a place even more remote than Whitehaven and right at the bottom of the Copeland constituency.

Whatever you may think of her, the fact that she is willing to make this sort of effort speaks well of her.

Now, all she has to do is stop those bloody pylons being plastered all across the Whicham valley.........

Email it to me and I'll upload it on here.

I use http://imgur.com/ for pics on here, easy to use, public, anonymous.

Cyclefree said:

Well, well - so much for the European Arrest Warrant. A French trader charged by the SFO in relation to the rigging of Euribor (like Libor) cannot, according to the French courts, be extradited even under the EAW because what he did happened on French territory and wasn't outlawed when it happened.

Interesting for two reasons: odd to suggest that conspiracy to commit fraud was not illegal in France in 2005. And it sends out a very poor signal re the French authorities' willingness to police their financial system.

Also an interesting question of where what he did had effect. So if he was trading in London registered bonds, even from Paris, did that not have effect here? I would have thought so.

ESMA are very quickly going to look pretty ridiculous if they seek to exclude London from the regulation of financial trading across the Continent. The pressure to accept UK regulation as equivalent (effectively allowing the Single Passport) can only be helped by idiocies like this.

danielmawbs said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: more car reveals. Must say, the McLaren makes me want a chocolate orange:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39075183

REminds me of the old arrows.

That's not necessarily a good precedent ...