politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s striking about the Maria Miller polling is that CON
Very often the most important factor in polling is not the data but how it is used. There can be few better examples than today’s Mail on Sunday coverage of its Maria Miller polling. The paper, like the Telegraph and the Times yesterday, is after her and Miller’s survival chances won’t be helped.
Comments
-
Just think and imagine: What would a Daily Mail poll say about "Dutchie" Clegg (and would it pass the Auntie-Hortence filter)...?
:yawn:0 -
Some anti-Tory-inclined people here, including myself, are seeing a nasty, probably unfair media pile-on on this minister. Since we generally dislike what we see as the hysteria of the right-wing press as much or more than we dislike the Tories, that feeling may be providing a counter-weight to the normal tendency for people to be relaxed about things their side does and outraged about things the other side does.
PS The way the (reasonably fairly phrased) question is put most people are inevitably going to go for the "resign" side. What we really need to know is how much they care about it. The online pollsters should put in some kind of salience tracking measurement, like showing a bunch of different pictures of ministers and asking you which one you'd most like to slap.0 -
So when will Nabavi and Fitalass flip ?0
-
Edmund - completely agree. The whole episode is very sinister - reminiscent of the Harman circus. Unedifying and characteristic of a rightwing press that has become a seething caricature of itself.edmundintokyo said:Some anti-Tory-inclined people here, including myself, are seeing a nasty, probably unfair media pile-on on this minister. Since we generally dislike what we see as the hysteria of the right-wing press as much or more than we dislike the Tories, that feeling may be providing a counter-weight to the normal tendency for people to be relaxed about things their side does and outraged about things the other side does.
PS The way the (reasonably fairly phrased) question is put most people are inevitably going to go for the "resign" side. What we really need to know is how much they care about it. The online pollsters should put in some kind of salience tracking measurement, like showing a bunch of different pictures of ministers and asking you which one you'd most like to slap.
0 -
The Basingstoke and Deane local election results will be one to watch!
http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/browse/council-and-democracy/councillors-democracy-and-elections/elections/results/2013/default.htm0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597487/AMANDA-PLATELL-Daves-daft-defence-Maria-Miller-insult-women.html
The Tory knives are out for Miller.....but also for Dave !0 -
Update: Labour lead at 5 - Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 4th April - Con 34%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%; APP-190
-
Chill-on.... [sic]surbiton said:So when will Nabavi and Fitalass flip ?
0 -
YouGov Euro election
Con 23 (-1), Lab 30 (-2), LD 9 (-2), UKIP 28 (+5)
So a debate bounce for the Kippers, plus a net 5% increase in Farage's ratings.0 -
The only thing saving her is the fact that it's highly unlikely anything new can be printed about the story, so unless someone senior publicly demands her head it will likely blow over0
-
Might her local party deselect her if they do badly in the May elections?Millsy said:The only thing saving her is the fact that it's highly unlikely anything new can be printed about the story, so unless someone senior publicly demands her head it will likely blow over
0 -
Not unless they hate her. They certainly don't need to worry about losing the seat:anotherDave said:
Might her local party deselect her if they do badly in the May elections?Millsy said:The only thing saving her is the fact that it's highly unlikely anything new can be printed about the story, so unless someone senior publicly demands her head it will likely blow over
Basingstoke, 2010:
Conservative Maria Miller 25,590 50.5 +11.7
Liberal Democrat John Shaw 12,414 24.5 +2.6
Labour Funda Pepperell 10,327 20.4 -12.2
UKIP Stella Howell 2,076 4.1 +1.90 -
It's obvious that the media would be out to get her post-Levesin, and you've got to factor that in. Dave is notably loyal, and I think this goes to the Alastair Campbell rule of 11 days in the news spells trouble- can Labour and the media keep it in the headlines for that long?
A COn councillor I was with on Friday called for her to be sacked. So much for loyalty but backs up the polling figures, there doesn't seem to be a depth of support in the party.0 -
Agreed! But unfortunately the knives are not for Miller, they are for Dave's back.edmundintokyo said:Some anti-Tory-inclined people here, including myself, are seeing a nasty, probably unfair media pile-on on this minister. Since we generally dislike what we see as the hysteria of the right-wing press as much or more than we dislike the Tories, that feeling may be providing a counter-weight to the normal tendency for people to be relaxed about things their side does and outraged about things the other side does.
PS The way the (reasonably fairly phrased) question is put most people are inevitably going to go for the "resign" side. What we really need to know is how much they care about it. The online pollsters should put in some kind of salience tracking measurement, like showing a bunch of different pictures of ministers and asking you which one you'd most like to slap.
Any vested interest group is going to circle the wagon train to defend themselves from any attack, perceived or otherwise. Why shouldn't the print media do the same in the face of falling readership?
I am interested in the amount of publicity given to the dead tree media by the electronic media, given that the known right wing bias of nearly all DTM distorts balance while the easy, free access to alternative news and views available to the majority of people in the UK today, even, dare I say it, on sites like this one.
0 -
This just feeds into the perception that there is one rule for those in certain sectors of this society ,and a totally different set for those who work in others.
In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
It is difficult to imagine in similar circumstances in most peoples line of work, their manager saying let us draw a line under it and leave it there.
If that was the case ,the manager would be certainly in a derogation of duty situation.0 -
Maria Miller is an obvious target for the Mail/Telegraph/Times.
I doubt that their intent is to force her resignation. A much better outcome for their publishing groups is to weaken the Coalition government and Parliament in the post-Leveson negotiations.
The Press proprietors have already delayed until after the General Election the implementation of the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press. Having a wounded Culture Secretary in place until the election would suit them far more than a change of SoS, with all the risks that might pose to current policy.
This makes a full-scale '11 day' press campaign for Miller's resignation unlikely.0 -
Would it? What part specifically, and what would be the crime she would be reported for?Yorkcity said:In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
0 -
Where does Labour come into it? Many have been wondering what Labour is hiding, so muted has been its response.tpfkar said:It's obvious that the media would be out to get her post-Levesin, and you've got to factor that in. Dave is notably loyal, and I think this goes to the Alastair Campbell rule of 11 days in the news spells trouble- can Labour and the media keep it in the headlines for that long?
0 -
Aiding and abetting the Government and Parliament in the commission of the crime of depriving Newspaper proprietors of their rightful and lawful possession of power?edmundintokyo said:
Would it? What part specifically, and what would be the crime she would be reported for?Yorkcity said:In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
0 -
It makes sense for them to keep their mouths shut on this one while the press and the Tory base are doing the job for them. It avoids leaving hostages to fortune and keeps the Tories from closing ranks in response. And they still have the option of bringing it up belatedly at PMQs or whatever if it needs another nudge to keep it in the news.DecrepitJohnL said:
Where does Labour come into it? Many have been wondering what Labour is hiding, so muted has been its response.tpfkar said:It's obvious that the media would be out to get her post-Levesin, and you've got to factor that in. Dave is notably loyal, and I think this goes to the Alastair Campbell rule of 11 days in the news spells trouble- can Labour and the media keep it in the headlines for that long?
0 -
Petition for Maria Miller to face criminal proceedings, also a little bit vague on the specific offence.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/maria-miller-to-face-criminal-proceedings?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=13967040720 -
edmundintokyo said:
Would it? What part specifically, and what would be the crime she would be reported for?Yorkcity said:In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
Systematically over claiming expenses.
Theft act 1968.
Definition of “theft”
1. Basic definition of theft.
2.“Dishonestly”
3.“Appropriates”.
4.“Property”.
5.“Belonging to another”.
6.“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.0 -
Most organisations would know the difference between an expenses system and an allowances system. MPs are asking for trouble by having the one masquerading as the other, and it would save them a lot of grief, bureaucracy and costs if they switched to proper allowances and scrapped expenses. MPs from outside London could be given an allowance for second homes and for travel, and whether they cycled or helicoptered from Westminster to Dunny-on-the-Wold would make no difference to their compensation.Yorkcity said:This just feeds into the perception that there is one rule for those in certain sectors of this society ,and a totally different set for those who work in others.
In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
But yes, you are right about one rule for them and another for the rest of us.0 -
What were McShane and the other expenses cheats banged up for?edmundintokyo said:
Would it? What part specifically, and what would be the crime she would be reported for?Yorkcity said:In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
0 -
Or fraud, s2 of the 2006 Fraud Act would seem fairly fulfilled.Yorkcity said:edmundintokyo said:
Would it? What part specifically, and what would be the crime she would be reported for?Yorkcity said:In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
Systematically over claiming expenses.
Theft act 1968.
Definition of “theft”
1. Basic definition of theft.
2.“Dishonestly”
3.“Appropriates”.
4.“Property”.
5.“Belonging to another”.
6.“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
0 -
(FPT) Who was Christopher Jones? Is he really dead? Did he ever really exist in the first place?0
-
The conclusions of the report into Maria Miller's expense claims by the House of Commons's Committee on Standards:
Mrs Miller did not subsidise her parents' living costs from public funds. Her claims up until 2008-09 did not include claims for mortgage interest on any increase above the facility when she entered the House. Indeed, for much of that period her claims were significantly below that figure, although close to the overall cap on expenses. We accept Mrs Miller's contention that her overclaim in 2008-09 was inadvertent and caused by the rapid reduction in interest rates.Yorkcity said:edmundintokyo said:
Would it? What part specifically, and what would be the crime she would be reported for?Yorkcity said:In most occupations, this would lead to being sacked, or a report of crime made to the police.
Systematically over claiming expenses.
Theft act 1968.
Definition of “theft”
1. Basic definition of theft.
2.“Dishonestly”
3.“Appropriates”.
4.“Property”.
5.“Belonging to another”.
6.“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.0 -
For me, the key issue is that this reinforces the idea, rightly or wrongly,that our politicians haven't, to use a phrase so beloved of those politicians, "learned lessons" from 5 years ago. That we keep getting these scandals just proves that the system doesn't work. It needs a total overhaul, and implementing properly. The biggest block to that is that it's close to a GE, and there's no real appetite from any of the parties to get involved in something that will be viewed by the electorate as introspective.
Clegg's broken politics is still broken, and no one really knows how to fix it.
0 -
Quincel agreed.
"Or fraud, s2 of the 2006 Fraud Act would seem fairly fulfilled."
0 -
I think the main issue is not the troughing - it seems to go with the job - it's the cover up. Refusing to cooperate when caught and using her position to threaten. Not a legal problem but a moral one.0
-
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2012/11/tributes-paid-to-bbc-presenter-chris-jones/JohnLoony said:(FPT) Who was Christopher Jones? Is he really dead? Did he ever really exist in the first place?
0 -
Miller is all about Leveson. Political row whipped up by the Daily Mail. The hypocrisy of some in the HOC. and outside..................... Holier than thou piety, it makes one want to vomit.,
What were the questions asked about Miller in the poll, I mean they couldn't have been leading could they...
Why were Blair's expense claims destroyed?
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Just having a look to see if any bets emerge for the race.0 -
I was with two Conservative councillors yesterday, who were both convinced Miller should go.
It's just a bit of fun, but if you Baxter the numbers for Yougov's certain to votes, you get UKIP 304, Labour 241, Conservative 61, Lib Dem 14.0 -
Assuming the Leveson speculation is accurate, then that's a combination of menace and stupidity. As Machiavelli wrote, men must be pampered or annihilated. Wounding someone only slightly or suggesting a threat only leaves them with both the strength and the motivation to do harm to you.
If she goes, I anticipate with great tedium the shrieking about Cameron having a 'women' problem. [He can, of course, simply promote future Prime Minister Justine Greening].0 -
Or Nadine.Morris_Dancer said:Assuming the Leveson speculation is accurate, then that's a combination of menace and stupidity. As Machiavelli wrote, men must be pampered or annihilated. Wounding someone only slightly or suggesting a threat only leaves them with both the strength and the motivation to do harm to you.
If she goes, I anticipate with great tedium the shrieking about Cameron having a 'women' problem. [He can, of course, simply promote future Prime Minister Justine Greening].
0 -
No, the expenses story is legitimate, and there is both polling and anecdotal evidence that Conservatives react the same as everyone else.SquareRoot said:Miller is all about Leveson. Political row whipped up by the Daily Mail. The hypocrisy of some in the HOC. and outside..................... Holier than thou piety, it makes one want to vomit.,
What were the questions asked about Miller in the poll, I mean they couldn't have been leading could they...
Why were Blair's expense claims destroyed?
Why were Blair's claims destroyed? Maybe a better question is why no-one seems interested in investigating. Or, since Labour's enemies are now in power, perhaps they have looked but found nothing incriminating.
0 -
F1: torn between two bets. Might offer them both as tips.
As an aside, I thought I'd check the winner's market. Rosberg and Hamilton are practically identical at barely over evens. Next placed is Bottas, who starts third, at 40.0 -
Maria Miller's career in politics is over. She might as well resign, preferably as an MP.0
-
I don't think they were intentionally leading but this stuff is a bit hard to do neutrally:SquareRoot said:
What were the questions asked about Miller in the poll, I mean they couldn't have been leading could they...Q6. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Maria Miller was instructed this week by a parliamentary committee to repay £5,800 in mortgage expenses she had claimed on her second home, after she failed to cut her claims as interest rates fell.The committee also found that she had submitted “incomplete” evidence to the inquiry and had breached the MPs code of conduct by obstructing the investigation. It demanded that she apologise to the House of Commons, which she has now done.Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?
I guess if you've spent all this time setting up the premise about what she's done wrong (and you can't really ask the question without doing that) it's inviting the response that she should resign. But it's hard to see how they could have asked the question without doing that. Also you could argue that people would have been more sympathetic if they'd mentioned that the main charge she was being investigated for turned out, in the opinion of the inquiry, to be bullshit, and arguably politically-motivated bullshit as well, which puts her uncooperativeness in a slightly different light. But it seems a bit much to expect Survation to somehow stuff all that into the question.
Maria Miller should now resign as a cabinet minister
Maria Miller has no need to resign as a cabinet minister0 -
Mr. Tokyo, they could have mentioned she was not found guilty or reprimanded except for her attitude.0
-
Betting Post
F1: backed Bottas to be winner without Rosberg/Hamilton at 3.75 (Ladbrokes), and Perez to get a podium (5, hedged at 2.2, Betfair).
Article will be up shortly.0 -
Twas I who noted Christopher Jones passing.JohnLoony said:(FPT) Who was Christopher Jones? Is he really dead? Did he ever really exist in the first place?
Those of a certain vintage will recall him well. The following is a programme he presented on the history of the Palace of Westminster from 1984. Seen with PM Thatcher about 30 minutes in :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/bigben/7509.shtml
0 -
And that is just the polite version; God forbid that the 'electorate' should judge others!TwistedFireStopper said:For me, the key issue is that this reinforces the idea, rightly or wrongly,that our politicians haven't, to use a phrase so beloved of those politicians, "learned lessons" from 5 years ago.
0 -
@TwistedFireStopper
TFS
The accusations against Maria Miller relate to 2005-2009, i.e. before she became a Cabinet Minister, before the Coalition Government was formed and before the "expenses scandal" broke.
So it is not fair to claim that her case demonstrates that "our politicians ...haven't learned lessons from 5 years ago". All the events being questioned took place more than five years ago.
The only contentious issue was over the amount of mortgage interest that Maria Miller was entitled to claim. The Standards Commissioner had interpreted the Green Book Rules (applying at the time the claims were made) as having the intent of forbidding MPs from increasing the amount of their mortgages in order take advantage of the rules to claim additional interest. The Commissioner's view was that only interest on the mortgage loan amount taken out at the time of the purchase of the property should be reclaimable. The Commissioner based this interpretation on the findings of a previous inquiry into George Osborne's mortgage interest claims.
The Standards Committee disagreed with the Commissioner in the interpretation of the rules (specifically limiting interest claims to the loan amount at the date of original purchase) and in the relevance of the Osborne case to the facts and circumstances of Maria Miller's case.
Here is the Standards Committee finding on this issue [their bolding]:
When the rules were formulated the intention was to prevent MPs withdrawing equity from their property for non-housing purposes. No thought was given to the effect of the rule on newly elected Members who might claim ACA on a property owned for decades, where the mortgage had increased over the years. Nor was thought given to the reasonableness of a rule which could retrospectively bite on decisions made before someone was elected, or even before they had contemplated standing for election. As Mrs Miller pointed out, no attempt was made to ensure that newly elected Members only made claims against the original purchase price of the property. In these circumstances, imposing a strict interpretation of the rule would not be appropriate. Whatever the strict construction of the rule, it was reasonable for Mrs Miller to claim the interest on her mortgage as it was when she entered the House, rather than as it was when she first purchased the property.
For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that a later relaxation of the Green Rules allowed interest to be claimed on increases in mortgage loans for the purpose of developing or repairing a property, subject to prior notification to, discussion with and authorisation by the expenses office.
The Standards Committtee, quite rightly and fairly in my view, concluded that Maria Miller's ACA claims made in accordance with the rules and guidance of the relevant period.
0 -
I think you have the wrong chap there. Same name but not the former BBC political correspondent.AveryLP said:
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2012/11/tributes-paid-to-bbc-presenter-chris-jones/JohnLoony said:(FPT) Who was Christopher Jones? Is he really dead? Did he ever really exist in the first place?
0 -
F1: pre-race piece now up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/bahrain-pre-race.html0
-
Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.0 -
Mr. Dickson, that's a perhaps slanted view. It could equally as well be read that Cameron feels it's a tougher challenge for the Conservatives to win in 2015 than for No to win this year.
That said, the ambiguity of his language is not a good thing.0 -
Mr AveryLP, it’s not so much the what happened as the way she’s appeared to treat it. I think the case you make is fair; there’s no question that when the rules were made no-one etc etc, and indeed, IIRC, we hadn’t had such a sustained rise in house prices.0
-
Definitely a different Christopher Jones, Jack. My apologies to Mr. Loony and all members of all Jones families who might have been offended by my inaccurate link.JackW said:
I think you have the wrong chap there. Same name but not the former BBC political correspondent.AveryLP said:
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2012/11/tributes-paid-to-bbc-presenter-chris-jones/JohnLoony said:(FPT) Who was Christopher Jones? Is he really dead? Did he ever really exist in the first place?
Good to see Maggie had talents as an interior decorator though. Was there any limit to her capabilities?
0 -
:kalmar-turnip-watch:Stuart_Dickson said:Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.0 -
I would like to know whether the Mail on Sunday is actually just trying to supplement OGH's retirement funds! Was it 3/1 he got on Miller going next?0
-
I suspect he’s assuming NO is a done deal.Stuart_Dickson said:Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.
Before I’m attacked with verbal claymores, let me assure the Nats that that’s by no means my personal view!0 -
Why does the BBC insist on giving air time to that stupid Toynbee woman? An expert on all things Tuscan and precious little else and a crap journalist.0
-
I guess if you've spent all this time setting up the premise about what she's done wrong (and you can't really ask the question without doing that) it's inviting the response that she should resign. But it's hard to see how they could have asked the question without doing that. Also you could argue that people would have been more sympathetic if they'd mentioned that the main charge she was being investigated for turned out, in the opinion of the inquiry, to be bullshit, and arguably politically-motivated bullshit as well, which puts her uncooperativeness in a slightly different light. But it seems a bit much to expect Survation to somehow stuff all that into the question.edmundintokyo said:
I don't think they were intentionally leading but this stuff is a bit hard to do neutrally:SquareRoot said:
What were the questions asked about Miller in the poll, I mean they couldn't have been leading could they...Q6. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Maria Miller was instructed this week by a parliamentary committee to repay £5,800 in mortgage expenses she had claimed on her second home, after she failed to cut her claims as interest rates fell.The committee also found that she had submitted “incomplete” evidence to the inquiry and had breached the MPs code of conduct by obstructing the investigation. It demanded that she apologise to the House of Commons, which she has now done.Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?
Maria Miller should now resign as a cabinet minister
Maria Miller has no need to resign as a cabinet minister
Its a sort of "mob" reaction.. if no one says a word about her for a month, no one will remember what it was all about. Perhaps if the same people questioned had been asked if they had ever stolen anything from their employer first or after the Miller question, then you would get a different set of answers.
The Daily Mail wreaks of hypocrisy with its fury/ outrage/ faux anger, so far as I know they have never been able to state where this anger /outrage etc emanates from.
That's because its in the minds of their journalists and is a given for pretty much any article they write.0 -
I stand corrected, but I think my point still stands, rightly or wrongly, the perception is there, that nothing has changed much.AveryLP said:
@TwistedFireStopper
TFS
The only contentious issue was over the amount of mortgage interest that Maria Miller was entitled to claim. The Standards Commissioner had interpreted the Green Book Rules (applying at the time the claims were made) as having the intent of forbidding MPs from increasing the amount of their mortgages in order take advantage of the rules to claim additional interest. The Commissioner's view was that only interest on the mortgage loan amount taken out at the time of the purchase of the property should be reclaimable. The Commissioner based this interpretation on the findings of a previous inquiry into George Osborne's mortgage interest claims.
The Standards Committee disagreed with the Commissioner in the interpretation of the rules (specifically limiting interest claims to the loan amount at the date of original purchase) and in the relevance of the Osborne case to the facts and circumstances of Maria Miller's case.
Here is the Standards Committee finding on this issue [their bolding]:
When the rules were formulated the intention was to prevent MPs withdrawing equity from their property for non-housing purposes. No thought was given to the effect of the rule on newly elected Members who might claim ACA on a property owned for decades, where the mortgage had increased over the years. Nor was thought given to the reasonableness of a rule which could retrospectively bite on decisions made before someone was elected, or even before they had contemplated standing for election. As Mrs Miller pointed out, no attempt was made to ensure that newly elected Members only made claims against the original purchase price of the property. In these circumstances, imposing a strict interpretation of the rule would not be appropriate. Whatever the strict construction of the rule, it was reasonable for Mrs Miller to claim the interest on her mortgage as it was when she entered the House, rather than as it was when she first purchased the property.
For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that a later relaxation of the Green Rules allowed interest to be claimed on increases in mortgage loans for the purpose of developing or repairing a property, subject to prior notification to, discussion with and authorisation by the expenses office.
The Standards Committtee, quite rightly and fairly in my view, concluded that Maria Miller's ACA claims made in accordance with the rules and guidance of the relevant period.0 -
There has been much nonsense spoken about Maria Miller, most of it from those with their own agenda based on Leveson (the Press) and a desire to spread the muck around (Labour, home of jailed expense cheat former MP's). Those on here talking "fraud" should moderate their language - unless they want to leave OGH open to legal action.
From what I have read (and most offering an opinion have read little or nothing of what actually occurred here) Cameron thinks she has been badly stitched up for little more than a minor transgression - and accordingly his instinct has been to support her.
Which is noble.
But politically stupid. Standing up for Maria Miller is not worth letting Ed Miliband into Downing Street.
0 -
As @JohnLoony alluded information about Christopher Jones is sparse but pre the interweb and multi platforms and 24 hour news coverage he was an integral part of the BBC political coverage.AveryLP said:
Definitely a different Christopher Jones, Jack. My apologies to Mr. Loony and all members of all Jones families who might have been offended by my inaccurate link.JackW said:
I think you have the wrong chap there. Same name but not the former BBC political correspondent.AveryLP said:
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2012/11/tributes-paid-to-bbc-presenter-chris-jones/JohnLoony said:(FPT) Who was Christopher Jones? Is he really dead? Did he ever really exist in the first place?
Good to see Maggie had talents as an interior decorator though. Was there any limit to her capabilities?
As for Maggie - "was there any limit to her capabilities?" - I rather think she thought not as indeed did many of her supporters and detractors.
0 -
If even Cameron has become complacent then things are about to get fun.OldKingCole said:
I suspect he’s assuming NO is a done deal.Stuart_Dickson said:Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.
Before I’m attacked with verbal claymores, let me assure the Nats that that’s by no means my personal view!
0 -
OKCOldKingCole said:Mr AveryLP, it’s not so much the what happened as the way she’s appeared to treat it. I think the case you make is fair; there’s no question that when the rules were made no-one etc etc, and indeed, IIRC, we hadn’t had such a sustained rise in house prices.
I am not a great Miller fan (probably unreasonable prejudice on my part) and have no axe to grind on her behalf, but I do like getting to the facts behind the spin. Hence I have read the full Standards Committee Report.
The press story is really a proverbial elephant mountain heap made of a molehill.
Even the criticism for hiring a lawyer to deal with the Commissioner of Standards appears to be unwarranted in context. Read this extract to see why:
35. In 2003 the Green Book provided that claims for mortgage costs were limited to:
the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages, and legal and other costs associated with obtaining that home (eg stamp duty, valuation fees, conveyance, land searches, removal expenses),
In 2005 this was changed to:
to the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages, legal and other costs associated with obtaining (and selling) that home (eg stamp duty, valuation fees, conveyance, land searches, removal expenses).
The Commissioner considers this change as significant; in her analysis she compares the rules in 2003 to those in 2005 which were set out as:
- a list, separated appropriately by a comma between the first and second items and "and" before the final item and all of the items are "associated with obtaining (and selling) that home".
- In contrast the word "and" is crucial to the sense of the 2003 Green Book by separating the sentence into two parts. The effect is that it says mortgage costs limited to:
- "[the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages]and [other costs associated with obtaining (and selling)that home"
Now I know you need to be a Kipper to place an apostrophe correctly but when it comes to commas it is now clear to me that only the antifranks, TSEs and SeanFs of this world are sufficiently qualified to take on so complex a task.0 -
2 years gone and nobody's laughing, dullest campaign ever.Stuart_Dickson said:
If even Cameron has become complacent then things are about to get fun.OldKingCole said:
I suspect he’s assuming NO is a done deal.Stuart_Dickson said:Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.
Before I’m attacked with verbal claymores, let me assure the Nats that that’s by no means my personal view!0 -
Worth remembering how much people noticed the Miller story prior to this weekend:
twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/4520982048723640330 -
I suspect more likely David Cameron knows the Indy Referendum is already lost but he can still win at Westminster next year.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dickson, that's a perhaps slanted view. It could equally as well be read that Cameron feels it's a tougher challenge for the Conservatives to win in 2015 than for No to win this year.
That said, the ambiguity of his language is not a good thing.
0 -
One wonders when punters are going to wake up. You can still get Yes at 7/2.Easterross said:
I suspect more likely David Cameron knows the Indy Referendum is already lost but he can still win at Westminster next year.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dickson, that's a perhaps slanted view. It could equally as well be read that Cameron feels it's a tougher challenge for the Conservatives to win in 2015 than for No to win this year.
That said, the ambiguity of his language is not a good thing.
0 -
We don't care how dull you find it. The important fact is that at last Scots can win a lasting victory.Alanbrooke said:
2 years gone and nobody's laughing, dullest campaign ever.Stuart_Dickson said:
If even Cameron has become complacent then things are about to get fun.OldKingCole said:
I suspect he’s assuming NO is a done deal.Stuart_Dickson said:Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.
Before I’m attacked with verbal claymores, let me assure the Nats that that’s by no means my personal view!0 -
People continually talk about the great north-south divide and the London- the rest divide. I am increasingly struck by the huge and growing divide within Scotland between the small, mostly metropolitan elite and the rest. Those who are totally convinced NO will win are overwhelmingly well paid, middle class graduates. Those who actually speak to ordinary people in the street or the housing estates or in the rural communities will hear a totally different picture. Interesting that the DKs break 2-1 in favour of YES rather than NO. Considering we still have Bannockburn 700, Ryder Cup, Commonwealth Games etc all still to come, no wonder A Darling of the Parish of Edinburgh was somewhat tetchy on Marr this morning.0
-
Victory over what ? Is this another of your numerous inferiority complexes - football, Olympics, anyone english, cats, libdems, anyone called Mark Senior, Tories, Norwegians .....Stuart_Dickson said:
We don't care how dull you find it. The important fact is that at last Scots can win a lasting victory.Alanbrooke said:
2 years gone and nobody's laughing, dullest campaign ever.Stuart_Dickson said:
If even Cameron has become complacent then things are about to get fun.OldKingCole said:
I suspect he’s assuming NO is a done deal.Stuart_Dickson said:Cameron: keeping the Union not as important as winning at Westminster
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/cameron-keeping-the-union-not-as-important-as-winning-at-westminster.23887799
We'd never have guessed.
Before I’m attacked with verbal claymores, let me assure the Nats that that’s by no means my personal view!
the list just goes on and on.
0 -
A thousand-quid of mine against £1.5K of Swedish Kronars says that the Scots still lack a dangley-pair. PtP to hold undated cheques (and arbitrate).Stuart_Dickson said:One wonders when punters are going to wake up. You can still get Yes at 7/2.
:man-or-turnip:
0 -
Let us not forget that even after the Scots have sailed off into the Arctic Ocean they will still be mumbling about how it was their Kings, not the English ones, who died in the Border Wars.
They should only be allowed a currency union if all the men wear sporrans at all times.0 -
No wonder Darling was mentally deranged on Marr today
http://wingsoverscotland.com/cat-released-from-bag/0 -
No10 have played the miller case badly. Their actions seem to have given the story legs rather than kill it. The micro apology and arguing black is white over the Leveson comments both didn't help.0
-
No good news for conservatives today. The voteless recovery goes on....
Makes you wonder why governments bother to try to get the economy right. No votes in it.0 -
oh Dear....
Twitter.com/newsundayherald/status/452565980183408640/photo/1
http://wingsoverscotland.com/moving-on-up/
0 -
I actually feel sorry for most MPs over expenses. The dishonesty and arrogance of a few has created a new system which is almost unworkable and leaves MPs paranoid about claiming the kind of normal expenses I claim every week ("MP claims KitKat shock!"). Having a few dishonest MPs doesn't make MPs dishonest.
In Millers case there are several things that stink. The ambiguity around what she did or didn't do. The way she acted to impede the investigation. The way she "apologised". And the way the press are determined to have her quit.
Ultimately politics is about credibility. Any politician being told they need to repay a 4-figure sum of expenses they weren't entitled to should no longer be a politician. Anyone else in any other profession would be sacked for gross misconduct and possibly prosecuted, their CV and references would be difficult for them going forward. But even assuming for a moment that there is more wiggle room for MPs due to the appalling way their expenses system is now structured, we come to her "apology".
The tweet length "apology" and silence in which is was received speaks an unbelievable arrogance and contempt for the system. If you - as the investigating MPs committee decided - give her the benefit of doubt over the expenses claim (and again, no other employer would), there is no doubt about the appalling political spectacle of her "apology".
The government has a major perception problem of arrogance and detachment from normality. Miller and Cameron's support for Miller amplifies these issues in the massive glare of publicity. Her credibility as a minister, and the credibility of the PM supporting this, is destroyed. This issue will now be the first question that any interviewer asks of her on any issue until the election - and for that reason alone her position as minister is not credible.
Final thought. This is politics. If Cameron can't understand the damage this does to an already toxic Conservative brand he really is out of touch. If Miller doesn't resign for expenses, she resigns for bringing the party into disrepute. Either way she has to go.0 -
"Why is David Cameron standing by Maria Miller, the pathetic, over-promoted Minister censured for her expenses? Some say it’s because he hasn’t enough women in his Cabinet (enough for what?).
But I think it’s because the Premier is still guilty about his own entirely legal claims for Elite Housing Benefit. Most people still don’t realise how greedily this already rich man milked the system."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597956/Get-ready-to-jail-children-denounce-you.html#ixzz2y604z3YO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
Hey BobaBobaFett said:
Edmund - completely agree. The whole episode is very sinister - reminiscent of the Harman circus. Unedifying and characteristic of a rightwing press that has become a seething caricature of itself.edmundintokyo said:Some anti-Tory-inclined people here, including myself, are seeing a nasty, probably unfair media pile-on on this minister. Since we generally dislike what we see as the hysteria of the right-wing press as much or more than we dislike the Tories, that feeling may be providing a counter-weight to the normal tendency for people to be relaxed about things their side does and outraged about things the other side does.
PS The way the (reasonably fairly phrased) question is put most people are inevitably going to go for the "resign" side. What we really need to know is how much they care about it. The online pollsters should put in some kind of salience tracking measurement, like showing a bunch of different pictures of ministers and asking you which one you'd most like to slap.
Would you pick john Terry for the England World Cup squad if you were manager?0 -
The reason Con supporters want her gone is as much as because she is crap as the expenses.
Barnacles off the boat - she has achieved more for the opposition this weekend as Ed Miliband has in 4 months.0 -
Mellor on Sky news - 'won't be missed if goes and won't be noticed if stays.' And now making a good point re why she got the dept.0
-
“Like"RochdalePioneers said:I actually feel sorry for most MPs over expenses. The dishonesty and arrogance of a few has created a new system which is almost unworkable and leaves MPs paranoid about claiming the kind of normal expenses I claim every week ("MP claims KitKat shock!"). Having a few dishonest MPs doesn't make MPs dishonest.
In Millers case there are several things that stink. The ambiguity around what she did or didn't do. The way she acted to impede the investigation. The way she "apologised". And the way the press are determined to have her quit.
Ultimately politics is about credibility. Any politician being told they need to repay a 4-figure sum of expenses they weren't entitled to should no longer be a politician. Anyone else in any other profession would be sacked for gross misconduct and possibly prosecuted, their CV and references would be difficult for them going forward. But even assuming for a moment that there is more wiggle room for MPs due to the appalling way their expenses system is now structured, we come to her "apology".
The tweet length "apology" and silence in which is was received speaks an unbelievable arrogance and contempt for the system. If you - as the investigating MPs committee decided - give her the benefit of doubt over the expenses claim (and again, no other employer would), there is no doubt about the appalling political spectacle of her "apology".
The government has a major perception problem of arrogance and detachment from normality. Miller and Cameron's support for Miller amplifies these issues in the massive glare of publicity. Her credibility as a minister, and the credibility of the PM supporting this, is destroyed. This issue will now be the first question that any interviewer asks of her on any issue until the election - and for that reason alone her position as minister is not credible.
Final thought. This is politics. If Cameron can't understand the damage this does to an already toxic Conservative brand he really is out of touch. If Miller doesn't resign for expenses, she resigns for bringing the party into disrepute. Either way she has to go.0 -
So the governor of the BoE is a liar according to the Nats ? So why would you want to use a currency run by this man ?
Too scared ?0 -
An another appalling example of BBC bias:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-26890988
In a story about extreme right fascist parties in the EU, they question why UKIP has not signed up to the alliance.0 -
No. Nasty piece of work who disrupts the dressing room. Albeit not guilty.isam said:
Hey BobaBobaFett said:
Edmund - completely agree. The whole episode is very sinister - reminiscent of the Harman circus. Unedifying and characteristic of a rightwing press that has become a seething caricature of itself.edmundintokyo said:Some anti-Tory-inclined people here, including myself, are seeing a nasty, probably unfair media pile-on on this minister. Since we generally dislike what we see as the hysteria of the right-wing press as much or more than we dislike the Tories, that feeling may be providing a counter-weight to the normal tendency for people to be relaxed about things their side does and outraged about things the other side does.
PS The way the (reasonably fairly phrased) question is put most people are inevitably going to go for the "resign" side. What we really need to know is how much they care about it. The online pollsters should put in some kind of salience tracking measurement, like showing a bunch of different pictures of ministers and asking you which one you'd most like to slap.
Would you pick john Terry for the England World Cup squad if you were manager?
Are you likening Miller to him?0 -
Note the classic Mail technique of picking the most expensive room in the hotel at the most expensive time and using the price of that - £2,500 - right through the article as if that was what the taxpayer paid to put this person up on business for the night. Obviously they don't actually specifically say they paid that price, since they have no evidence they did.TwistedFireStopper said:
Anyone else planning a gay sex romp in the Manchester Light ApartHotel will be happy to know there are rooms on Expedia for as little as £75.0 -
This is about the next phase of the expenses scandal which the likes of the ST insight team/Telegraph/MoS and others have all been preparing for and just waiting till it all kicks off.
Whether Miller goes or not those expenses stories are still going to happen but she would set the bar and tone for all the rest when they start getting revealed. Which they inevitably will.
0 -
Dear dear Flash , you are so stupid you think treasury is BofE. Perhaps if you were able to read you would know it was referring to that lying civil servant Sir Nicholas MacPherson, who uttered the lies on the orders of his boss Gideon. He cannot even find the fag packet his advice was written on.TGOHF said:So the governor of the BoE is a liar according to the Nats ? So why would you want to use a currency run by this man ?
Too scared ?0 -
The press are in bullying mode. They want her scalp to prove their power. A useful side benefit to them is that she is associated with press regulation, which they hope to destroy.0
-
Good Morning. Been out leafleting for UKIP this morning, Luckily the rain stopped for my foray.
OT: Cammo, like the donkey he is, has a mulish streak and will try to hold on to Miller as long as possible. However, even donkeys have to let go sometime.
0 -
I think another 'tell' re when the battle's lost is the number of defence lines that get rolled out. So far I've heard/read it's because of Leveson, her stance re gay marriage, that she's a woman.
I reckon a two defence limit would be a good marker.
She could have stepped back from her post, done her time out and taken it from there. Now it's an ever increasing circle. Again.0 -
It's the Daily Mail. They're too busy posting selfies of Kardashians to bother about proper reporting.edmundintokyo said:
Note the classic Mail technique of picking the most expensive room in the hotel at the most expensive time and using the price of that - £2,500 - right through the article as if that was what the taxpayer paid to put this person up on business for the night. Obviously they don't actually specifically say they paid that price, since they have no evidence they did.TwistedFireStopper said:
Anyone else planning a gay sex romp in the Manchester Light ApartHotel will be happy to know there are rooms on Expedia for as little as £75.0 -
Mr MikeK; the only thing worse than leafleting in the rain is canvassing in it!
Must confess I’ve never tried doing either when it was snowing, though!
That’s not saying I’m in favour of your "back to the 50’s" lot, though!0 -
Edmondoedmundintokyo said:
Note the classic Mail technique of picking the most expensive room in the hotel at the most expensive time and using the price of that - £2,500 - right through the article as if that was what the taxpayer paid to put this person up on business for the night. Obviously they don't actually specifically say they paid that price, since they have no evidence they did.TwistedFireStopper said:
Anyone else planning a gay sex romp in the Manchester Light ApartHotel will be happy to know there are rooms on Expedia for as little as £75.
Also the "claims that taxpayers’ money was used to fund gay sex parties". It turns out that an independent organisation paid the expenses of those involved, and the connection with the taxpayer was solely that such organisation was in receipt of taxpayer funds no doubt for entirely unrelated purposes.0 -
At that price it would almost be silly *not* to organise a gay sex romp in the Manchester Light ApartHotel!edmundintokyo said:
Anyone else planning a gay sex romp in the Manchester Light ApartHotel will be happy to know there are rooms on Expedia for as little as £75.0 -
Miller, as has been pointed out with ample reference to the Committee's report, did little wrong although the miscalculation of interest payments over the course of a full year as they fell from 5% to where they are now is surely no small matter. We are all saying "it's only £5,800" but that is still non-trivial. Nevertheless, she did not defraud the state on account of her parents or the increased mortgage.
The bigger question for me, however, is her sheer nasty, bullying, deviousness about it all which betrays a hugely unattractive solipsism if nothing else.
How do you sack someone for being a shit, though?0 -
How do donkeys hold on to something?MikeK said:Good Morning. Been out leafleting for UKIP this morning, Luckily the rain stopped for my foray.
OT: Cammo, like the donkey he is, has a mulish streak and will try to hold on to Miller as long as possible. However, even donkeys have to let go sometime.
They have no fingers, let alone opposable thumbs.
Thanks
The Metaphor Pedant
0 -
I am not fighting any battles for politicians, they are all as bad as each other, if I am fighting a battle its against the vile Daily Mail, which I absolutely abhor. It wouldn't know the truth if was placed right in front of it, and if it knew the truth it would somehow distort it for its own ends.Carola said:I think another 'tell' re when the battle's lost is the number of defence lines that get rolled out. So far I've heard/read it's because of Leveson, her stance re gay marriage, that she's a woman.
I reckon a two defence limit would be a good marker.
She could have stepped back from her post, done her time out and taken it from there. Now it's an ever increasing circle. Again.
0 -
Shapps on Sky. Oh dear.0
-
They bite it?GeoffM said:
How do donkeys hold on to something?MikeK said:Good Morning. Been out leafleting for UKIP this morning, Luckily the rain stopped for my foray.
OT: Cammo, like the donkey he is, has a mulish streak and will try to hold on to Miller as long as possible. However, even donkeys have to let go sometime.
They have no fingers, let alone opposable thumbs.
Thanks
The Metaphor Pedant0
