William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
There was a period when paedophile groups pretending to be gay rights groups were protected by the "right on" of the time. This lead to lots of bad stuff. I'm glad that period is getting a bit of an airing in public.
Roman Polanski still has his defenders among the elite of the film world. Hence Whoopi Goldberg's argument that drugging and sodomising a 13 year old girl "wasn't rape, rape."
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
The National Front were a prominent organisation in the late 70's, they used to hand out leaflets outside Stamford Bridge every home game. If they had applied for affiliation to the NCCL and paid the required fee do you suppose Harman & Co would have allowed them to join?
If you think not then that explains why they are in trouble now.
Maybe I am the only one who finds the joy at which others revel in their opponents being the subject of disgusting smears distasteful. I will say no more on the matter.
There was a period when paedophile groups pretending to be gay rights groups were protected by the "right on" of the time. This lead to lots of bad stuff. I'm glad that period is getting a bit of an airing in public.
Roman Polanski still has his defenders among the elite of the film world. Hence Whoopi Goldberg's argument that drugging and sodomising a 13 year old girl "wasn't rape, rape."
Rather strangely, Mia Farrow (who accuses Woody Allen of molesting their young daughter) describes herself as "a close personal friend" of Roman Polanski.
Maybe I am the only one who finds the joy at which others revel in their opponents being the subject of disgusting smears distasteful. I will say no more on the matter.
That Tim bloke never used to engage in that kind of thing.
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
The National Front were a prominent organisation in the late 70's, they used to hand out leaflets outside Stamford Bridge every home game. If they had applied for affiliation to the NCCL and paid the required fee do you suppose Harman & Co would have allowed them to join?
If you think not then that explains why they are in trouble now.
As someone else has pointed out Harman and Co were fairly low in the NCCL feed chain in the 70's, and wouldn't have been in a position to prevent or stop anyone joining.
Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, the NCCL doesn't allow affiliation or whatever from political parties.
Maybe I am the only one who finds the joy at which others revel in their opponents being the subject of disgusting smears distasteful. I will say no more on the matter.
Maybe I am the only one who finds the joy at which others revel in their opponents being the subject of disgusting smears distasteful. I will say no more on the matter.
You should have been here when the Lord McAlpine smears first emerged.
In both instances some posters did not and have not covered themselves in glory.
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
The National Front were a prominent organisation in the late 70's, they used to hand out leaflets outside Stamford Bridge every home game. If they had applied for affiliation to the NCCL and paid the required fee do you suppose Harman & Co would have allowed them to join?
If you think not then that explains why they are in trouble now.
As someone else has pointed out Harman and Co were fairly low in the NCCL feed chain in the 70's, and wouldn't have been in a position to prevent or stop anyone joining.
Presumably Hewitt, as general secretary of the NCCL between 1974-83, was just making the tea, emptying the bins, that kind of thing.
Harman as the Council's legal officer from 1978 to 1982 looked after the stationary, while Dromey sat on its executive committee from 1970 to 1979 as biscuit monitor, being put in charge of postage when he became Chairman in 1976.
Maybe I am the only one who finds the joy at which others revel in their opponents being the subject of disgusting smears distasteful. I will say no more on the matter.
In that case, mate, you'd be a rarity on here. Tribal smears and mud slinging are the norm on here-from all sides. You have to be honest with yourself, and then condemn Labour's disgusting smears as well.
On the Harman case, I just can't feel sympathy for the woman, or her compatriots in the NCCL. She's not been a friend of the average working class lad for a long time, and if she has to squirm for a while, I'll not be sorry.
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
The National Front were a prominent organisation in the late 70's, they used to hand out leaflets outside Stamford Bridge every home game. If they had applied for affiliation to the NCCL and paid the required fee do you suppose Harman & Co would have allowed them to join?
If you think not then that explains why they are in trouble now.
As someone else has pointed out Harman and Co were fairly low in the NCCL feed chain in the 70's, and wouldn't have been in a position to prevent or stop anyone joining.
Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, the NCCL doesn't allow affiliation or whatever from political parties.
Patricia Hewitt, however, was General Secretary, from 1974-83.
Self appointed morality for all - and by the cartload.
Making some kind of apology would have required the NCCL three to stop preaching from their self-erected pulpits, something they would never have countenanced. Their reaction is exactly what the Mail was counting on.
The National Front were a prominent organisation in the late 70's, they used to hand out leaflets outside Stamford Bridge every home game. If they had applied for affiliation to the NCCL and paid the required fee do you suppose Harman & Co would have allowed them to join?
If you think not then that explains why they are in trouble now.
As someone else has pointed out Harman and Co were fairly low in the NCCL feed chain in the 70's, and wouldn't have been in a position to prevent or stop anyone joining.
Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, the NCCL doesn't allow affiliation or whatever from political parties.
Harman was legal officer, Dromey was on the executive and Hewitt was general secretary. So not fairly low in the food chain at all.
Also Harman has said anyone could join if they paid the fee, it doesn't say anything about political groups, though that may be the case and it hasn't been outlined.
Mr. F, Goldberg's comment was as deranged as it is indefensible.
My favourite Harmanism was when she claimed it was sexist to refer to people as 'love' and that it shouldn't happen.
One suspects she's never actually heard of Yorkshire.
Her brand of deluded feminism leads to nonsense such as the call for no women to ever be sent to prison. (I wish I were making that up. The Corston Report from around 2004 suggested women criminals should instead live in little communities of 20-30 and do things like cooking and shopping together. Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
Mr. F, Goldberg's comment was as deranged as it is indefensible.
My favourite Harmanism was when she claimed it was sexist to refer to people as 'love' and that it shouldn't happen.
One suspects she's never actually heard of Yorkshire.
Her brand of deluded feminism leads to nonsense such as the call for no women to ever be sent to prison. (I wish I were making that up. The Corston Report from around 2004 suggested women criminals should instead live in little communities of 20-30 and do things like cooking and shopping together. Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
Mr Dancer, you're being very ungenerous to the Corston report, they pointed out that women who have been victims of violence and abuse are over represented in prisons and that is something that should be taken into account when sentencing them and helping them in prison.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
Mr. F, Goldberg's comment was as deranged as it is indefensible.
My favourite Harmanism was when she claimed it was sexist to refer to people as 'love' and that it shouldn't happen.
One suspects she's never actually heard of Yorkshire.
Her brand of deluded feminism leads to nonsense such as the call for no women to ever be sent to prison. (I wish I were making that up. The Corston Report from around 2004 suggested women criminals should instead live in little communities of 20-30 and do things like cooking and shopping together. Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
Mr Dancer, you're being very ungenerous to the Corston report, they pointed out that women who have been victims of violence and abuse are over represented in prisons and that is something that should be taken into account when sentencing them and helping them in prison.
What about men who are subjected to violence and abuse in relationships? Do they get it taken into account as well, and when getting them help in prison?
Mr. F, Goldberg's comment was as deranged as it is indefensible.
My favourite Harmanism was when she claimed it was sexist to refer to people as 'love' and that it shouldn't happen.
One suspects she's never actually heard of Yorkshire.
Her brand of deluded feminism leads to nonsense such as the call for no women to ever be sent to prison. (I wish I were making that up. The Corston Report from around 2004 suggested women criminals should instead live in little communities of 20-30 and do things like cooking and shopping together. Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
Mr Dancer, you're being very ungenerous to the Corston report, they pointed out that women who have been victims of violence and abuse are over represented in prisons and that is something that should be taken into account when sentencing them and helping them in prison.
What about men who are subjected to violence and abuse in relationships? Do they get it taken into account as well, and when getting them help in prison?
And yes, it happens all too often.
It does, page 3 of the report is an eye opener.
Outside prison men are more likely to commit suicide than women but the position is reversed inside prison;
Self-harm in prison is a huge problem and more prevalent in the women’s estate;
Here's the full report, I know one of the contributors
Maybe I am the only one who finds the joy at which others revel in their opponents being the subject of disgusting smears distasteful. I will say no more on the matter.
You're the greatest
Don't get lonely up there on the high moral ground
Mr. F, Goldberg's comment was as deranged as it is indefensible.
My favourite Harmanism was when she claimed it was sexist to refer to people as 'love' and that it shouldn't happen.
One suspects she's never actually heard of Yorkshire.
Her brand of deluded feminism leads to nonsense such as the call for no women to ever be sent to prison. (I wish I were making that up. The Corston Report from around 2004 suggested women criminals should instead live in little communities of 20-30 and do things like cooking and shopping together. Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
There is a brand of feminism that holds very old-fashioned views of men and women (men as violent, sex-crazed beasts, women as angels above them).
Mr. Eagles, at the time I was at university women were twice as likely as men to be subject to a psych intervention during trial (ie an expert brought in to diagnose a psych condition as a mitigating circumstance). I'm sure that female victims of abuse are over-represented in prison, and that the same is true of male victims of abuse.
That does not mean the system is not already dramatically slanted towards women, who as well as being likelier to receive a psych intervention tend to get shorter sentences for the same crimes.
it's funny how equality disappears as a noble concept for some when it means toughening up the system for women.
2) People are going to misuse the apostrophe in Workers', and misuse of apostrophes really gets on my nerves. Which leads to people doing this, which makes me want to go medieval on some people
Cambridge ‘irresponsible’ for dropping apostrophes from new road signs
Mr. Eagles, at the time I was at university women were twice as likely as men to be subject to a psych intervention during trial (ie an expert brought in to diagnose a psych condition as a mitigating circumstance). I'm sure that female victims of abuse are over-represented in prison, and that the same is true of male victims of abuse.
That does not mean the system is not already dramatically slanted towards women, who as well as being likelier to receive a psych intervention tend to get shorter sentences for the same crimes.
it's funny how equality disappears as a noble concept for some when it means toughening up the system for women.
Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
There's an argument that you should reserve imprisonment for those guilty of violent offences who are a danger to the public, rather than as a deterrent and/or a punishment.
In such a system you would not release any violent offender until one was confident that they were no longer a threat to the public. This would be a stricter regime for violent offenders and a less strict regime for non-violent offences, although there would still need to be a system of sanctions and punishments for non-violent crimes, just a bit more imaginative than imprisonment.
While the majority (80%) of violent offences are committed by men, the percentage committed by women is a lot larger than the percentage of the prison population that is female (4.6%, June 2013), so the argument I was going to make about such an approach reducing the relative size of the female prison population is, er, actually false.
Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
There's an argument that you should reserve imprisonment for those guilty of violent offences who are a danger to the public, rather than as a deterrent and/or a punishment.
In such a system you would not release any violent offender until one was confident that they were no longer a threat to the public. This would be a stricter regime for violent offenders and a less strict regime for non-violent offences, although there would still need to be a system of sanctions and punishments for non-violent crimes, just a bit more imaginative than imprisonment.
While the majority (80%) of violent offences are committed by men, the percentage committed by women is a lot larger than the percentage of the prison population that is female (4.6%, June 2013), so the argument I was going to make about such an approach reducing the relative size of the female prison population is, er, actually false.
A non-violent offender can still be significant danger to the public, though.
Mr. Me, as you suggest, it's a coherent intellectual position to argue that only violent offenders should be imprisoned, but you would have to (as you imply) apply that to both genders.
Unlike Salmond and the referendum though CON most seats, NOM is a live possibility so Cameron may be stuck with this empty promise.
I'd expect the Lib Dems to say Coalition or bust and not give supply and confidence if they feel it isn't in their interests. Cameron won't be able to do a deal though as the 1922 WILL come knocking if he does so again... so he'll have to resign.
I'm not on Cameron going before Clegg but that is clearly a value bet with this development.
As an aside, looking at the prison population statistics (PDF, chart 6, page 8), it's fascinating to note that there have been three main periods, since 1900, when the proportion of the prison population that was female has peaked.
The first two were during WWI and WWII, when presumably the male prison population fell because they were given the option of serving in the army, or opportunities for criminality were reduced when in the trenches, etc. The third peak occurred in the Blair era.
Only relevant when you know what they are paying tax on. If you take Norway then they pay higher tax but have far higher salaries so are much better off and have higher standard of living than UK. So pointless only showing half the story, but very Tory approach.
The study is based on a standard $400,000 per annum* salary, to enable comparisons.
When coupled with low corporate tax rates, the UK is a very attractive proposal for those generating taxable income. Excellent news for inward investment.
(*Not that an independent Scotland would have many with an income of $400,000 (well, apart from the handful on the political crony circuit...)
Think you will find the UK is little better. So as I said total bullshit considering that only a fraction of 1% of the people are included in this piece of rubbish. Show me a real comparison on average wages.
Interesting debate about prison. I think @TSE is right here and that imprisonment should be to protect the public - I didn't approve, for example, of Chris Huhne and his wife being imprisoned. It's a waste of public money and they could be put to better use doing something of community use rather than languishing in jail for three months. If women are more prone to self harm and/or suicide in jail, then we are right to consider that.
Fortunately, my personal bitcoins are safe. And the BTCUSD exchange rate is c. $500.
Delighted to hear it. Were you a BTC bull @ $1,000?
I think my most expensive bitcoins were bought at $10. And I've been a seller since about $150.
Speaking of which did you ever setting our bet on UKIP winning that by-election? (I posted an address on one of the threads afterwards but I don't think you were around.) 13UUaGK8ZDLxjY7RYu2bKEabqjww2KDyxD if you haven't already - I think we said 50 milli-bitcoins.
Mr. Me, might be linked to ladette culture and similar issues. Female violent crime has risen more rapidly than male violent crime (ironically, it seems equality has meant instead of men becoming more genteel women have [to a degree] taken on the worst aspects of the chaps).
Only relevant when you know what they are paying tax on. If you take Norway then they pay higher tax but have far higher salaries so are much better off and have higher standard of living than UK. So pointless only showing half the story, but very Tory approach.
The study is based on a standard $400,000 per annum* salary, to enable comparisons.
When coupled with low corporate tax rates, the UK is a very attractive proposal for those generating taxable income. Excellent news for inward investment.
(*Not that an independent Scotland would have many with an income of $400,000 (well, apart from the handful on the political crony circuit...)
Think you will find the UK is little better. So as I said total bullshit considering that only a fraction of 1% of the people are included in this piece of rubbish. Show me a real comparison on average wages.
I think that was given later in the extract linked to, for those with 2 children and single people, I think.
Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
There's an argument that you should reserve imprisonment for those guilty of violent offences who are a danger to the public, rather than as a deterrent and/or a punishment.
In such a system you would not release any violent offender until one was confident that they were no longer a threat to the public. This would be a stricter regime for violent offenders and a less strict regime for non-violent offences, although there would still need to be a system of sanctions and punishments for non-violent crimes, just a bit more imaginative than imprisonment.
While the majority (80%) of violent offences are committed by men, the percentage committed by women is a lot larger than the percentage of the prison population that is female (4.6%, June 2013), so the argument I was going to make about such an approach reducing the relative size of the female prison population is, er, actually false.
The way I see it, holding someone in prison, as opposed to serving a sentence in the community, serves three purposes:
1) It is a greater punishment. 2) To protect the public. 3) To allow rehabilitation of an offender.
People can agree or disagree with the weightings of these, and an individual can be sent to jail for punishment and not to protect the public.
But whether male or female, a major problem appears to be that rehabilitation services in jail seem (from the outside at least) to be awful. Drugs use in jail being a classic example, and lack of investment in education.
People are going to misuse the apostrophe in Workers', and misuse of apostrophes really gets on my nerves. Which leads to people doing this, which makes me want to go medieval on some people
Cambridge ‘irresponsible’ for dropping apostrophes from new road signs
Interesting debate about prison. I think @TSE is right here and that imprisonment should be to protect the public - I didn't approve, for example, of Chris Huhne and his wife being imprisoned. It's a waste of public money and they could be put to better use doing something of community use rather than languishing in jail for three months. If women are more prone to self harm and/or suicide in jail, then we are right to consider that.
I think we lock far, far too many people up.
Had Huhne avoided a prison sentence, it would simply have fuelled the view that there's one law for the well-connected, and another law for the rest.
If the Conservatives get very close to 326 we could see alot of pork barrels for Northern Ireland (The DUP make no secret of what it takes for them to agree to deals) and DevoMax (No vote) or a currency union (Yes vote) for Scotland...
Mr. Me, might be linked to ladette culture and similar issues. Female violent crime has risen more rapidly than male violent crime (ironically, it seems equality has meant instead of men becoming more genteel women have [to a degree] taken on the worst aspects of the chaps).
Might be also worth considering the rise in drug usage and associated crime e.g. prostitution. To the extent it's gender-neutral (or even if druggie male burglars get caught less often than females out on the streets) it might contribute.
Interesting debate about prison. I think @TSE is right here and that imprisonment should be to protect the public - I didn't approve, for example, of Chris Huhne and his wife being imprisoned. It's a waste of public money and they could be put to better use doing something of community use rather than languishing in jail for three months. If women are more prone to self harm and/or suicide in jail, then we are right to consider that.
I think we lock far, far too many people up.
I think I agree to a certain level, but for repeat offenders it's really the only option eventually.
Take shop-lifting for example, if shop-lifters even repeat ones never lost their liberty, what deterrence really is there?
Mr. Me, as you suggest, it's a coherent intellectual position to argue that only violent offenders should be imprisoned, but you would have to (as you imply) apply that to both genders.
Yes, I expected that the proportion of the prison population that was female would be larger than the proportion of violent crimes that were committed by women, but it's the other way around! Glad I checked the statistics first.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
If the Conservatives get very close to 326 we could see alot of pork barrels for Northern Ireland (The DUP make no secret of what it takes for them to agree to deals) and DevoMax (No vote) or a currency union (Yes vote) for Scotland...
Interesting comment, but why currency union after a Yes vote? Surely that would be seen as backing down? Is it to avoid disruption/hassle in the markets?
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
Also see YES has dropped dramatically from its high as well.
If the Conservatives get very close to 326 we could see alot of pork barrels for Northern Ireland (The DUP make no secret of what it takes for them to agree to deals) and DevoMax (No vote) or a currency union (Yes vote) for Scotland...
Interesting comment, but why currency union after a Yes vote? Surely that would be seen as backing down? Is it to avoid disruption/hassle in the markets?
It would be to get the support of the SNP on side until independence to make a workable majority.
If the Conservatives get very close to 326 we could see alot of pork barrels for Northern Ireland (The DUP make no secret of what it takes for them to agree to deals) and DevoMax (No vote) or a currency union (Yes vote) for Scotland...
Interesting comment, but why currency union after a Yes vote? Surely that would be seen as backing down? Is it to avoid disruption/hassle in the markets?
Salmond will probably do very well if there is a YES vote at GE2015. If the Lib Dems won't do a deal to pass the Queens speech he could well have Dave over a barrel.
If Yes wins there is no way in hell the Conservatives will go for a currency union before the election. If the Lib Dems try that Osborne would be thrilled to paint them as 'soft on Scotland'.
If the Conservatives get very close to 326 we could see alot of pork barrels for Northern Ireland (The DUP make no secret of what it takes for them to agree to deals) and DevoMax (No vote) or a currency union (Yes vote) for Scotland...
Interesting comment, but why currency union after a Yes vote? Surely that would be seen as backing down? Is it to avoid disruption/hassle in the markets?
Salmond will probably do very well if there is a YES vote at GE2015. If the Lib Dems won't do a deal to pass the Queens speech he could well have Dave over a barrel.
Salmond will probably do very well if there is a YES vote at GE2015. If the Lib Dems won't do a deal to pass the Queens speech he could well have Dave over a barrel.
Ah, thanks, I see. There's not a lot of SNP MPs (though UKGE2015 might well change that on recent data). However, now you mention it, a Yes vote might lead other Scottish politicians in currently unionist parties - or even the entire parties - to reconsider their allegiances to London HQ. So I can certainly see at least some LD and possibly even Labour MPs from Scottish seats joining the SNP in this, at least temporarily, in the interests of getting a better deal and minimising the risk of chaos for everyone.
Really - how common is it for points-switchers to get locked up?
If they get convicted, then an immediate, or suspended, custodial sentence is likely. Perverting the course of justice is treated very seriously by the Courts. One can also be ruined professionally. A solicitor, or barrister, for example would very likely be struck off, if convicted of such an offence.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
Actually Betfair is a little more liquid now.. 166k matched (which of course means 83k has been bet).. still not much on a market that has been up 3 years
2/9 No 9/2 Yes
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes
Any talk of a majority Tory government will be meat and drink for the Nats..Perhaps their most potent weapon is the promise of a Scotland which never again will have to endure another Tory government.The more a Tory win is talked up,the more the Nats. can benefit.Should there be a poll cross-over in any poll between now and the referendum,showing a Tory lead,even if it's an outlier,I expect Salmon to hammer home the point-Vote Yes and never again suffer from the likes of Thatcher and Cameron ever again. Imagine the liberation-it's enough to make you Vote Yes.
Well that nicely gets the Conservatives out of Cameron's EU referendum, even if they do win most seats. Cynical, cynical, cynical.
If I was a Euro-sceptical Tory one thing I'd want some clarity on now would be: When asked about what would happen if he didn't get a majority, he said about the renegotiation / referendum, "If I am PM, this will happen". This was understandable as a coalition red line (no renegotiation+referendum, no deal), but what does it mean if there's no coalition? Does it mean he'll refuse to stay on as PM unless the LibDems will agree in advance to vote for his thing? Or does it mean... nothing?
Any talk of a majority Tory government will be meat and drink for the Nats..
I wonder if this point is being overstated. Was life any better for Scots under a Scottish dominated labour government than it is under the tories, relatively?
If I was a Euro-sceptical Tory one thing I'd want some clarity on now would be: When asked about what would happen if he didn't get a majority, he said about the renegotiation / referendum, "If I am PM, this will happen". This was understandable as a coalition red line (no renegotiation+referendum, no deal), but what does it mean if there's no coalition? Does it mean he'll refuse to stay on as PM unless the LibDems will agree in advance to vote for his thing? Or does it mean... nothing?
He means exactly what he says, as always.
I've never understood this bizarre Kreminology applied to Cameron. He says something - such as the pledge to leave the EPP group - and he does it.
Well that nicely gets the Conservatives out of Cameron's EU referendum, even if they do win most seats. Cynical, cynical, cynical.
If I was a Euro-sceptical Tory one thing I'd want some clarity on now would be: When asked about what would happen if he didn't get a majority, he said about the renegotiation / referendum, "If I am PM, this will happen". This was understandable as a coalition red line (no renegotiation+referendum, no deal), but what does it mean if there's no coalition? Does it mean he'll refuse to stay on as PM unless the LibDems will agree in advance to vote for his thing? Or does it mean... nothing?
...which leads onto the next question. Assuming it doesn't mean nothing, and further assuming that the LibDems aren't going to go along with this (which they obviously aren't): If the voters vote Conservative, who are they going to get as Prime Minister? Wouldn't this be a useful thing to tell them _before_ the election rather than after?
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
Betfair's fine now, and it's mildly interesting that most books are going out of their way to arb No and keep Yes short. This probably reflects the mix of business - money buyers at short odds aren't usually that interested in waiting for 7 months for a return.
There's quite a few odds compilers about who know plenty about politics. However money will still normally move prices as the markets are usually monitored by others. The biggest problem with offering anything beyond the basics is the effort needed to keep prices current [which usually isn't worth expending, given the numbers of bets taken] - and then a poll breaks and a few of the regulars on here get stuck in anyway ;-)
All that said I expect that as we get closer to the referendum this will be a very robust market indeed.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
A bit more than a tenner. I have put on much larger stakes than that (on the Yes side) without any effect on prices. So, the market seems to be a bit more sturdy than you depict it.
Actually Betfair is a little more liquid now.. 166k matched (which of course means 83k has been bet).. still not much on a market that has been up 3 years
2/9 No 9/2 Yes
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes
What is your definition of "smallish"? I don't think it can be the same as mine!
If I was a Euro-sceptical Tory one thing I'd want some clarity on now would be: When asked about what would happen if he didn't get a majority, he said about the renegotiation / referendum, "If I am PM, this will happen". This was understandable as a coalition red line (no renegotiation+referendum, no deal), but what does it mean if there's no coalition? Does it mean he'll refuse to stay on as PM unless the LibDems will agree in advance to vote for his thing? Or does it mean... nothing?
He means exactly what he says, as always.
I've never understood this bizarre Kreminology applied to Cameron. He says something - such as the pledge to leave the EPP group - and he does it.
So to be clear, your understanding of this is that assuming the LibDems won't vote for his renegotiation/referendum without a coalition deal (which I think you'll agree they obviously won't) he'll refuse to serve as PM unless he wins a majority?
I merely ask what proportion get locked up? I seems to be the key question.
I don't know. But perverting the course of justice is a serious offence.
I get fed up when people treat traffic offences as if they are not serious. Huhne and Pryce's lie to the court led to there being one more dangerous driver on the road (at least until he lost his licence a few months later).
So to be clear, your understanding of this is that assuming the LibDems won't vote for his renegotiation/referendum without a coalition deal (which I think you'll agree they obviously won't) he'll refuse to serve as PM unless he wins a majority?
I'm not sure that the LibDems would refuse, but that's up to them obviously. From the point of view of the Conservatives, I can't see any leader, be it Cameron or someone else, able to retain the support of the party as PM without a referendum. The party has, with varying degrees of reluctance, agreed to unite around a position of a referendum in the next parliament. It's probably the case that a majority of the party, or certainly a substantial minority, would prefer a referendum earlier, and I can't see them accepting a further delay beyond the next parliament (assuming the party is in government, of course).
Well you are just going to put off women with that approach - look at the very different ways men and women communicate in the pub. I have no idea whether it's nature or nurture but there's a clear difference. I agree that sometimes confrontation is necessary Sean but disagree that it should be the standard approach - often finding consensus is more beneficial.
I actually think it's rather sexist to say men are confrontational and women are consensus-driven. The reality is that "consensus politics" usually ends up as a stitch-up from the political class, whether it's the ANC in South Africa, the EU in Europe, or Wall Street giveaways in America. Politics should be about political argument and one side winning out. Messing through fence-straddling just ends up with poor inertia and mediocrity.
Not a particularly reasonable option, seeing as the voting system, media coverage quotes and electoral spending limits all prevent a new player making an impact. Look at the issues UKIP have: they're the third most supported in the country but might not even be allowed in the debates. Outrageous.
Roman Polanski still has his defenders among the elite of the film world. Hence Whoopi Goldberg's argument that drugging and sodomising a 13 year old girl "wasn't rape, rape."
I'm seeing the very same attitude on this board. Clearly this PIE group were disgusting and everyone in the broader civil liberties group should have fought for them to be excluded. But people are making all sorts of excuses for those in senior leadership positions.
In the last few years we have had case after case of criminal gangs systematically holding young teens and preteens in sexual slavery. Many of their victims will never be able to hold down a proper romantic relationship in their lives. Yet half of the sickos behind these crimes will be free men again in their 20s. How on Earth is that locking too many people up? Also, look at the English riots a few years back. A huge chunk of them had twenty previous convictions! If you had that many chances (not to mention the ones you weren't caught for), it's insane to allow these people to be free to commit more crimes. It would be best for society if these people were just stuck behind bars and everyone else could get on with their lives.
Totally O/T - but just seen this report about decreasing electoral voters in Westminster wards with high value houses. If the underlying data is publicly available for London boroughs it would be fascinating to see to get some idea of potential demographic change.
Any talk of a majority Tory government will be meat and drink for the Nats..Perhaps their most potent weapon is the promise of a Scotland which never again will have to endure another Tory government.
This is the strongest argument of all, IMHO. A region 83% of which votes for socialist parties is so disconnected from a normal country's political outlook that it shouldn't be in a union of any kind with any other country than Cuba or North Korea. I realise that neither of those would want Scotland either of course.
The Yes campaign really, really, really should be making more of this - "We'll never get the soviet government we all want unless we secede"; "in the UK, they have Tories - vote Yes for Scotland not to"; and so on.
Nobody thoughtful can really be taken in by any of the economic arguments for a Yes, given how much of the Scots electorate is in fact economically inactive (or state-dependent - same thing). The argument that would really resonate is that they are different.
It would make joining the EU later a harder sell, but as this can't happen anyway, that point is moot.
I agree with Nick Palmer downthread; Dave has stuffed up here by not rebutting this pronto. So his pitch in 2015 is that the Tories have a great plan for the country but that the Government they've been leading has been so bad to be unacceptable to continue.
Dave seems to me to have lost his focus recently. "Money is no object" was totally the wrong message in the floods given the economic situation, he's backing himself into all manner of corners over his EU renegotiation, and his "my way or the highway" moment today seems to have no basis in reality. I just wonder if his heart is still in it, wearied by yellows to the left and Bones to the right, and whether he's considering retiring, possibly next year?
As a LD this is a bit of a gift. Makes the Tories look isolated and extreme. It's one thing for his backbenchers to threaten to vote down any deal, but in the cold light of day, particularly that they would get their referendum, how many would actually vote for opposition? In making this pledge now it's just throwing away all the wriggle room he needs.
It would be interesting if the only viable coalition next time would be Con:Lab Germany has made this work, and it's probably the only way of getting the long term changes made that have to be done, which are politically impossible without both of the big two on board. The LDs would love a period as the official opposition to regroup.
I've being posting on this and predicted it would be a problem,when you let more people into the country with less resoures,your asking for trouble.
I posted about trying to make a appointment for my poorly mother and got to health centre early only to find a Queue of mainly Eastern Europeans and when I finally got to the reception,was told no more appointments and try again tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong,I don't blame the new arrivals,I blame the thick politicians who couldn't see this happening.
That's a robust and well written piece by Mr Bone. The police have obviously leaked the story to the Times - his mother in law's care is obviously a sensible and personal matter. And care is not cheap hence the £100k headline follows...
Someone from the police has acted quite disgracefully in this matter - Mr Bone could have easily leaked the story in a sympathetic light himself instead he's chosen to keep his powder dry over a deeply deeply personal matter.
The police (And I am normally the first to defend them) are in the wrong here, that story should never have been leaked to the press (1000-1 it was Mr Bone's solicitor who leaked it/ 1-1000 the police) .
As I said on the surface it looks like the police are quite disgracefully in the wrong here but my initial instincts have been wrong before (Plebgate).
Journalists will be journalists but the Police should act like the bloody police not some two bit tramp leaking her kiss and tell to the press.
Speaking of which did you ever setting our bet on UKIP winning that by-election? (I posted an address on one of the threads afterwards but I don't think you were around.) 13UUaGK8ZDLxjY7RYu2bKEabqjww2KDyxD if you haven't already - I think we said 50 milli-bitcoins.
No potential rUK prime minister is going to agree to a currency union just to get into Number 10, after a YES vote.
A formal currency union is economically absurd and dangerous for the rUK. We would be liable for Scotland's banks (currently 12 times the size of Scotland's GDP) - and much else.
More importantly, it would be politically impossible to sell a union. Most MPs wouldn't want it, and of course polls show that the pubic hates the idea. And this aspiring, double-dealing PM would soon be facing those voters, again - as the independence deal is done, and rUK inevitably has another General Election as the Scots MPs leave SW1.
"Vote for me, I was so desperate to get into Number 10, I broke my solemn promise, and jeopardised the British economy, just so I could have about six months in power".
Yeah, right.
None of the Scottish banks would be Scottish post-independence.
RBS would remain British (with a smallish Scottish subsidiary) Clydesdale is already owned by National Australia Bank Halifax BOS would remain British
I suspect Standard Life would choose to become a British company too.
Comments
In the case of gold, there are industrial applications that provide a floor.
But a Bitcoin - while mathematically limited in number - is unanchored.
It's only value is what people will pay for it.
And because it is no-one's primary method of exchange it will tend to be extremely volatile.
This may change over time. But it may not.
I would not entrust my life savings to bitcoins.
William Hill have just lengthened their No price to 2/7 (from 1/4). That is the best No price currently available. In fact, it may be the best No price since May 2013 (I would have to dig through the numbers to be certain).
If you think not then that explains why they are in trouble now.
Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, the NCCL doesn't allow affiliation or whatever from political parties.
In both instances some posters did not and have not covered themselves in glory.
Harman as the Council's legal officer from 1978 to 1982 looked after the stationary, while Dromey sat on its executive committee from 1970 to 1979 as biscuit monitor, being put in charge of postage when he became Chairman in 1976.
You have to be honest with yourself, and then condemn Labour's disgusting smears as well.
On the Harman case, I just can't feel sympathy for the woman, or her compatriots in the NCCL. She's not been a friend of the average working class lad for a long time, and if she has to squirm for a while, I'll not be sorry.
Also Harman has said anyone could join if they paid the fee, it doesn't say anything about political groups, though that may be the case and it hasn't been outlined.
My favourite Harmanism was when she claimed it was sexist to refer to people as 'love' and that it shouldn't happen.
One suspects she's never actually heard of Yorkshire.
Her brand of deluded feminism leads to nonsense such as the call for no women to ever be sent to prison. (I wish I were making that up. The Corston Report from around 2004 suggested women criminals should instead live in little communities of 20-30 and do things like cooking and shopping together. Prison, apparently, it something designed for men).
Dromey was on the executive committee from 1970 to 1979, according to the Mail. Skinny latte please Jack....
;-)
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome/bet-history/no-to-independence/today
Bit of indecision from Hillbillys on April 12th 2013... or a lot of two way business!!
I don't think you can read too much into the betting here.. such low liquidity on Betfair at the moment, and the people who price it up for the bookies are usually traders of other sports or risk managers who just move illiquid markets on a tenner
And yes, it happens all too often.
Outside prison men are more likely to commit suicide than women but the position is reversed inside prison;
Self-harm in prison is a huge problem and more prevalent in the women’s estate;
Here's the full report, I know one of the contributors
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/corston-report-march-2007.pdf
Don't get lonely up there on the high moral ground
The Beeb has a piece up with some interesting graphics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25949029
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/25/conservatives-workers-party-rebrand
Harriet Harman is someone who recently referred to another politican as a 'ginger rodent'...which was pretty low.
@HarrietHarman: When it comes to decency and sexualisation of children, would you take lessons from the Daily Mail? http://t.co/MXmWhOILKQ
That does not mean the system is not already dramatically slanted towards women, who as well as being likelier to receive a psych intervention tend to get shorter sentences for the same crimes.
it's funny how equality disappears as a noble concept for some when it means toughening up the system for women.
1) It's very North Korean
2) People are going to misuse the apostrophe in Workers', and misuse of apostrophes really gets on my nerves. Which leads to people doing this, which makes me want to go medieval on some people
Cambridge ‘irresponsible’ for dropping apostrophes from new road signs
http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/02/cambridge-irresponsible-for-dropping-apostrophes-from-new-road-signs-4287467/
Absolutely. Its the high handed, arrogant, how dare you right wing sc8m even raise these questions to your moral betters attitude that is the story.
If the NCCL 3 (or 2, strictly speaking) had been humbler - a la Chakrabati - this would would have been done and dusted long ago.
In such a system you would not release any violent offender until one was confident that they were no longer a threat to the public. This would be a stricter regime for violent offenders and a less strict regime for non-violent offences, although there would still need to be a system of sanctions and punishments for non-violent crimes, just a bit more imaginative than imprisonment.
While the majority (80%) of violent offences are committed by men, the percentage committed by women is a lot larger than the percentage of the prison population that is female (4.6%, June 2013), so the argument I was going to make about such an approach reducing the relative size of the female prison population is, er, actually false.
There must be many whispers in the halls of Westminster.
I'd expect the Lib Dems to say Coalition or bust and not give supply and confidence if they feel it isn't in their interests. Cameron won't be able to do a deal though as the 1922 WILL come knocking if he does so again... so he'll have to resign.
I'm not on Cameron going before Clegg but that is clearly a value bet with this development.
The first two were during WWI and WWII, when presumably the male prison population fell because they were given the option of serving in the army, or opportunities for criminality were reduced when in the trenches, etc. The third peak occurred in the Blair era.
Any ideas what that was all about?
I think we lock far, far too many people up.
13UUaGK8ZDLxjY7RYu2bKEabqjww2KDyxD if you haven't already - I think we said 50 milli-bitcoins.
That's really quite childish of you - my view differs to you and I am entitled to express it.
1922 is the backbench committee that gets the knife out when they decide they'v had enough of the leader.
1) It is a greater punishment.
2) To protect the public.
3) To allow rehabilitation of an offender.
People can agree or disagree with the weightings of these, and an individual can be sent to jail for punishment and not to protect the public.
But whether male or female, a major problem appears to be that rehabilitation services in jail seem (from the outside at least) to be awful. Drugs use in jail being a classic example, and lack of investment in education.
Fair enough, sling that in the manifesto.
There will be plenty who point to the fact that recorded crime has plummeted at the same time as record numbers are incarcerated.
I'm not saying they are right - but that is a powerful argument.
Take shop-lifting for example, if shop-lifters even repeat ones never lost their liberty, what deterrence really is there?
"Oh come on guys are we still talking about this?!"
"Oh guys can we change the subject please?!"
If Yes wins there is no way in hell the Conservatives will go for a currency union before the election. If the Lib Dems try that Osborne would be thrilled to paint them as 'soft on Scotland'.
Caveat: I know it may not happen that way!
Really - how common is it for points-switchers to get locked up?
I didn't write any of those three sentences so please don't put them in quote marks. Thanks.
2/9 No
9/2 Yes
All I can say is, having worked in the industry 20 years, odds compilers don't really know anything about political betting, and when there is a bet on markets like this they tend to move it sharpish, on any money really
You say you haven't moved the odds, but the odds have moved your way as Malcomg says.. all Im saying is it wont be because shrewd odds compilers are sitting there thinking "hmm Im not impressed with Osborne", or "I am really impressed with Salmond, I better Cut Yes, and push No out.." it will be someone having a smallish bet on Yes
Imagine the liberation-it's enough to make you Vote Yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26335261
Well theres a shock.
http://www.roadsupervisors.net/shz.news.htm
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8122281.Taxi_drivers_jailed_for_=/
And a BBC article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17365818
What proportion get locked up?
I wonder if this point is being overstated. Was life any better for Scots under a Scottish dominated labour government than it is under the tories, relatively?
I've never understood this bizarre Kreminology applied to Cameron. He says something - such as the pledge to leave the EPP group - and he does it.
I realise SOME people get locked up.
I merely ask what proportion get locked up? I seems to be the key question.
There's quite a few odds compilers about who know plenty about politics. However money will still normally move prices as the markets are usually monitored by others. The biggest problem with offering anything beyond the basics is the effort needed to keep prices current [which usually isn't worth expending, given the numbers of bets taken] - and then a poll breaks and a few of the regulars on here get stuck in anyway ;-)
All that said I expect that as we get closer to the referendum this will be a very robust market indeed.
I get fed up when people treat traffic offences as if they are not serious. Huhne and Pryce's lie to the court led to there being one more dangerous driver on the road (at least until he lost his licence a few months later).
So, yes, I think it would be a deal-breaker.
My own personal horror story at the hands of the Police – Peter Bone MP
http://wellingboroughconservatives.org/my-personal-nightmare-at-the-hands-of-the-police/
However, the Sentencing Guidelines indicated that a four month sentence is the absolute minimum for Perverting the Course of Justice.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/
The Yes campaign really, really, really should be making more of this - "We'll never get the soviet government we all want unless we secede"; "in the UK, they have Tories - vote Yes for Scotland not to"; and so on.
Nobody thoughtful can really be taken in by any of the economic arguments for a Yes, given how much of the Scots electorate is in fact economically inactive (or state-dependent - same thing). The argument that would really resonate is that they are different.
It would make joining the EU later a harder sell, but as this can't happen anyway, that point is moot.
So his pitch in 2015 is that the Tories have a great plan for the country but that the Government they've been leading has been so bad to be unacceptable to continue.
Dave seems to me to have lost his focus recently. "Money is no object" was totally the wrong message in the floods given the economic situation, he's backing himself into all manner of corners over his EU renegotiation, and his "my way or the highway" moment today seems to have no basis in reality. I just wonder if his heart is still in it, wearied by yellows to the left and Bones to the right, and whether he's considering retiring, possibly next year?
As a LD this is a bit of a gift. Makes the Tories look isolated and extreme. It's one thing for his backbenchers to threaten to vote down any deal, but in the cold light of day, particularly that they would get their referendum, how many would actually vote for opposition? In making this pledge now it's just throwing away all the wriggle room he needs.
It would be interesting if the only viable coalition next time would be Con:Lab Germany has made this work, and it's probably the only way of getting the long term changes made that have to be done, which are politically impossible without both of the big two on board. The LDs would love a period as the official opposition to regroup.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11033519.One_in_five_are_unable_to_get_to_see_a_GP_in_Bradford/?ref=var_0
I've being posting on this and predicted it would be a problem,when you let more people into the country with less resoures,your asking for trouble.
I posted about trying to make a appointment for my poorly mother and got to health centre early only to find a Queue of mainly Eastern Europeans and when I finally got to the reception,was told no more appointments and try again tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong,I don't blame the new arrivals,I blame the thick politicians who couldn't see this happening.
Someone from the police has acted quite disgracefully in this matter - Mr Bone could have easily leaked the story in a sympathetic light himself instead he's chosen to keep his powder dry over a deeply deeply personal matter.
The police (And I am normally the first to defend them) are in the wrong here, that story should never have been leaked to the press (1000-1 it was Mr Bone's solicitor who leaked it/ 1-1000 the police) .
As I said on the surface it looks like the police are quite disgracefully in the wrong here but my initial instincts have been wrong before (Plebgate).
Journalists will be journalists but the Police should act like the bloody police not some two bit tramp leaking her kiss and tell to the press.
http://msshooksenglishclasses.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/5/6/12566818/804192989_orig.jpg
Anyone else?
RBS would remain British (with a smallish Scottish subsidiary)
Clydesdale is already owned by National Australia Bank
Halifax BOS would remain British
I suspect Standard Life would choose to become a British company too.