politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This March looks like being the first since GE2017 when the po
Comments
-
We’ll be selling them lots of sandpaper then ?
https://twitter.com/tory_generation/status/978746166723710978?s=210 -
I didn't ask a question. I know the answer you have given to your guess at what I would have asked had I done so. I have no need of a clue. My observation stands.Pulpstar said:ReggieCide said:
Gauke, resign or not, is a Westminster bubble debate which, on here anyway, many seem to have a financial interest in, which may or may not be impinging.oxfordsimon said:
What is your basis for demanding his resignation?
Quite rightly, the Parole Board is independent of government - no LC should ever seek to interfere in their decision making process
As LC, Gauke took legal advice and as a result did not pursue a Judicial Review.
What did he do to justify resignation?
The clue is in the website name : http://www.politicalbetting.com/0 -
He was on the board of Vote Leave.Scott_P said:
He would have to signed it off in the official declarations to the electoral commission.0 -
Apparently the board didn't bother with trifling sums like that.TheScreamingEagles said:He was on the board of Vote Leave.
He would have to signed it off in the official declarations to the electoral commission.
They left it to the experts.
Oh, wait...0 -
0
-
A good opener's question. Don't offer a stroke if you don't have to and have a look at the bowler.stodge said:Afternoon all
I find it interesting how small the world really is - we have the Australian cricket team tampering with the ball and allegations of improper practice on both sides during the EU Referendum.
What links these two stories - simply, the question of what you or anyone will do to win whether it's a referendum, an election, a cricket match, a job or whatever.
What would you do to win ? Would you break the law, would you bend the law ?
It's human nature to want to succeed, to want to win, but is the "win at any cost" mentality any more than an excuse for darker aspects of human nature to come through ?
How much would you smear an opponent to win ? How much would you sabotage a rival to get a job, a contract, a profit ?
Ultimately, if sport and politics are not so far apart, the question isn't about breaking the law but getting caught. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got caught - was that their crime ? If we are to believe John Holder, cricket teams have been resorting to underhand tactics for years.
In politics, too, isn't the crime getting caught ? Aren't most elections tainted by all sides doing whatever it takes - voters were intimidated and bribed in the past, they arguably still are today, only the methods have changed.
Do the ends always justify the means ?0 -
DavidL said:
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.
Listening to the debate he seems to have had good answers, not least that his appeal would have failed, but he received support from most mp's.
I do not see him going anywhere0 -
Shadowy backers with large amounts of money? Citizens of Nowhere?CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
Who could she possibly be thinking of?0 -
-
-
Of course, the "easy wins" will be trumpeted - Canada, Australia, NZ and a few others will quickly sign up. Others may prove more of a challenge - China, the US, India - what about Brazil ? Then of course there's the not inconsiderable question of the EU itself.TheScreamingEagles said:We’ll be selling them lots of sandpaper then ?
https://twitter.com/tory_generation/status/978746166723710978?s=21
0 -
I do not believe the government requires standing to bring a judicial review.Pulpstar said:
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so).Richard_Nabavi said:
This is what David Gauke said on that point:tlg86 said:Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.0 -
Almost the worst in the hierarchy of disagreement.CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue0 -
Brutal poll for Jarosław Kaczyński's PiS party in Poland..
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/9790000594329640960 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. P, huzzah for Yorkshire!
Mr. Pulpstar, what's brought that 17 point drop about?
F1: Haas defends itself against allegations of being a copy of Ferrari:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula-one/435680430 -
MSP James Dornan’s fake hate letter story seems to be unravelling apace with another ex-pat Uber Nat this time in Finland not Bath the culprit. The trail has not been well covered.
0 -
Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-435667510 -
Not something Mr Meeks has studied, evidently.....logical_song said:
Almost the worst in the hierarchy of disagreement.CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue0 -
Mr. L, it's possible Ahmed's daft. During the EU referendum campaign he asked Carney (who replied fairly neutrally, I think) if the Governor could guarantee we wouldn't have a recession if we voted to leave the EU.
That means Ahmed is either unaware of the business cycle (not great for an economics editor), or he is aware of it and was trying to get an answer that made it appear a vote to leave was inherently bad (the only correct answer, of course, is that no such guarantee can exist because we'll always have another recession sooner or later).0 -
No, he just hasn't explained the difference between the value of sales made by Google Worldwide here and the value of revenue to Google UK.MikeL said:Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43566751
0 -
What's happened in Poland? According to the wikipedia page they were riding high:Pulpstar said:Brutal poll for Jarosław Kaczyński's PiS party in Poland..
twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/979000059432964096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Polish_parliamentary_election0 -
If he stands his ground and Labour takes away the whip, they have immediately created a King of the North. A useful rallying point perhaps?Scott_P said:0 -
From some earlier Google UK accounts.MikeL said:Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43566751
The disparity between the billions of pounds of revenues earned from the UK and the company’s relatively small turnover in the country is because the company books its sales in Ireland.
0 -
Many thanks.TheWhiteRabbit said:
No, he just hasn't explained the difference between the value of sales made by Google Worldwide here and the value of revenue to Google UK.MikeL said:Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43566751
He certainly hasn't explained that and nobody reading his article could possibly have the faintest clue that that is the explanation.
Nowhere does he distinguish between Google Worldwide making sales in the UK (which won't appear at all in the accounts of Google UK) and the accounts of Google UK.
Indeed looking at the two direct quotes in my first post he doesn't even refer to Google Worldwide or Google UK.0 -
so post Brexit their sales will go up X4TheScreamingEagles said:
From some earlier Google UK accounts.MikeL said:Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43566751
The disparity between the billions of pounds of revenues earned from the UK and the company’s relatively small turnover in the country is because the company books its sales in Ireland.
0 -
Xenophobe.CarlottaVance said:
Not something Mr Meeks has studied, evidently.....logical_song said:
Almost the worst in the hierarchy of disagreement.CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue0 -
0
-
Could be that oft overused term in polling... an actual 'outlier'.RobD said:
What's happened in Poland? According to the wikipedia page they were riding high:Pulpstar said:Brutal poll for Jarosław Kaczyński's PiS party in Poland..
twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/979000059432964096
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Polish_parliamentary_election0 -
Mr. Z, to be fair, I wasn't that taking with Xenophon the first time I read The Persian Expedition. Enjoying it a bit more this time around.0
-
Well, anywhere other than here.TheScreamingEagles said:
From some earlier Google UK accounts.MikeL said:Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43566751
The disparity between the billions of pounds of revenues earned from the UK and the company’s relatively small turnover in the country is because the company books its sales in Ireland.
Depending on how the £5.7bn is arrived at, such a view as to where sales are may be valid or invalid.0 -
The WSJ doesn't have anyone familiar with why Moses never reached the Promised land??TheScreamingEagles said:Vindication for those that call it EYE-RACK
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/978983222431371264
I thought that the media was all contr...0 -
Maslow's is the only triangular heirarchy he recognisesCarlottaVance said:
Not something Mr Meeks has studied, evidently.....logical_song said:
Almost the worst in the hierarchy of disagreement.CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue *
*No argument being engaged with here, so absolutely not a DH1 comment.0 -
It looks like Labour have finally realised that a 'meaningful vote' on the final Withdrawal Agreement is actually a meaningless vote - see 15:24 and 16:07 on the Guardian live blog:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live
0 -
Such cynicism is truly admirable. And indeed correct on this occasion.tlg86 said:
Presumably you missed out on the 50-1?DavidL said:
I thought it was quite brave of David Gaulke not to judicially review this extremely unpopular decision. It was based on legal advice and the easy path was to go to court and be seen to be doing all that could be done. It gave respect to the separation of roles and the undesirability of the government seeking to undermine the independent Parole Board.Richard_Nabavi said:Hmm, David Gauke says in the statement he's just released:
I took expert legal advice from leading counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally rational - in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.
The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.
The court summary says:
We uphold the challenge by DSD and NBV, as we have slightly reformulated it, to the rationality of the decision of the Parole Board directing the release of Mr Radford on the basis that it should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending and, in particular, the extent to which the limited way in which he has described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability. That is so even in relation to the offences of which he was convicted, let alone any other offending
Not that much of a different argument, if I've understood correctly.
I hope this doesn't wreck David Gauke's career, because I think he's a talented minister. But that juxtaposition doesn't look good.
It seems to me , even although he has proven to be wrong on this occasion these are admirable and desirable traits in a Justice Minister. I hope that May stands by him.0 -
Dear me, I spend the day elsewhere and return to find myself a topic of conversation.Pro_Rata said:
Maslow's is the only triangular heirarchy he recognisesCarlottaVance said:
Not something Mr Meeks has studied, evidently.....logical_song said:
Almost the worst in the hierarchy of disagreement.CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue *
*No argument being engaged with here, so absolutely not a DH1 comment.
I try to pitch myself at DH3 and above (and use DH3 only where I have previously set out my arguments at length). Most responses to me are at DH1 or DH2.0 -
It would be astonishing if the Justice Minister was found not to have standing in such a matter (unlike the Mayor who has no relevant responsibilities) . That does not take away from the proposition that such a challenge is better brought by those directly affected, namely his victims. Hopefully the bastard will now die in prison.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I do not believe the government requires standing to bring a judicial review.Pulpstar said:
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so).Richard_Nabavi said:
This is what David Gauke said on that point:tlg86 said:Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
Quite a bit of legal water to run through before we get there though.DavidL said:
It would be astonishing if the Justice Minister was found not to have standing in such a matter (unlike the Mayor who has no relevant responsibilities) . That does not take away from the proposition that such a challenge is better brought by those directly affected, namely his victims. Hopefully the bastard will now die in prison.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I do not believe the government requires standing to bring a judicial review.Pulpstar said:
The sofa is arriving anyway, para 11 (relating to Khan) certainly looks like a "Get out of jail free" card should Gauke wish to play it that way (Which he seem to have done so).Richard_Nabavi said:
This is what David Gauke said on that point:tlg86 said:Are we certain that the High Court would have reached the same conclusion had the government pursued the matter?
I also received advice on the failure of process argument [the argument that the Parole Board did not follow proper processes - an argument used in court by the victims and Khan] and was advised that this was not one that I as secretary of state would have been able to successfully advance. The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.
No sofa for Mrs Pulpstar, by the looks of it.
But the optics aren't great for the government whatever the status of our bets.0 -
Regrettably the inability to think logically does not stop with the leader.Richard_Nabavi said:It looks like Labour have finally realised that a 'meaningful vote' on the final Withdrawal Agreement is actually a meaningless vote - see 15:24 and 16:07 on the Guardian live blog:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-britons-could-lose-right-to-urgent-medical-treatment-in-eu-after-brexit-peers-warn-politics-live0 -
As long as he stays away from any red weddings.oxfordsimon said:
If he stands his ground and Labour takes away the whip, they have immediately created a King of the North. A useful rallying point perhaps?Scott_P said:0 -
0
-
Was he on the Board of Vote Leave at the time?TheScreamingEagles said:
He was on the board of Vote Leave.Scott_P said:
He would have to signed it off in the official declarations to the electoral commission.0 -
Yay!TheScreamingEagles said:We’ll be selling them lots of sandpaper then ?
https://twitter.com/tory_generation/status/978746166723710978?s=210 -
There are a lot of Paul Graham essays that are worth reading.logical_song said:
Almost the worst in the hierarchy of disagreement.CarlottaVance said:Everyone's for openness, I presume?
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/978985666464763906
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue0 -
I had no role in the decision of the panel in the casePulpstar said:Hardwick's letter:
I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case
I will not pass the buck to those who work under me
Translation: I chaired the meeting in such a way that I got the decision I wanted without having to use my casting vote.
I will not pass the buck to those who work under me
Translation: I am blaming those who work under me but have been sacked by my boss.0 -
There's no contradiction. It's about the statutory entity doing the selling vs the statutory entity doing the buying.MikeL said:Can anyone explain the following?
Kamal Ahmed (BBC Economics Editor) reporting on Google's results:
"The total value of Google's sales in the UK is about £5.7bn a year."
"Google's 2017 accounts show that it had revenues of £1.27bn a year in the UK between June 2016 and 2017, up from £1.03bn between 2015 and 2016."
He has directly contradicted himself in his own article. It doesn't inspire much confidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-435667510
