politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rochester punters unmoved by the CON primary and Cameron vi
Comments
-
The Democrats are still strong at local level, in Kentucky.Socrates said:
I've been incredibly impressed with Alison Lunder Grimes in Kentucky. At least in Georgia, Nunn had a large African American base to start with. Kentucky is just Republicans as far as the eye can see.Sean_F said:Michelle Nunn has been a superb candidate. In a Presidential election year, she'd win. She may still do so. But, this year's playing field is brutal for the Democrats, and the Republicans have nudged ahead in Colorado and Iowa, so we can expect a Republican Senate.
The Democrats are very good at picking the one candidate who can win in a Red State. The fact that Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, have won in the past, and are in contention now, and that Nunn and Grimes might win, is a real tribute to their abilities.
The problem is that the Republicans haven't chosen loons, this time, and the playing field is so brutal to Democrats.
0 -
Frankly that is an apalling attitude to have, millions gave their lives to protect our freedoms and our idea of democracy. Such an attitude is spitting in their faces for party tribalism. You should be ashamed of yourself and your partyBeverley_C said:
C'est la vie, unfortunately....
.
0 -
If the Tories were disqualified the MP would be Mark Reckless wouldnt it?Ishmael_X said:
I'm a half-competent lawyer (retd) and it looks a pretty powerful argument to me. Your definition of "private" seems a bit idiosyncratic. I also doubt whether accidentally empty-chairing themselves out of the most crucial by-election of the millennium so far would make the tories look that good.Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
Loving the idea of "ant cachet" though, very New Romantic.0 -
I agree, which is why I quoted the crucial sentence from Michael Crick's piece (see my post of 7.14pm).manofkent2014 said:Don't be ridiculous. There was no election at that point. Reckless was still the MP for Rochester. How can he be campaigning when there is no election. My guess is there is no election until the writ is moved (although am ready to be corrected). Until there is an election there is no campaign.
0 -
Mr Pagan, I agree that the whole issue of "primaries" has to be regularised, or at least recognised.
So far as I am aware "primaries" in the US are subject to rules, although these vary from state to state; we don't have any such rules.
Writing to all electors within the "obvious period of the election" is surely electioneering. If I, as a non-Tory elector, decide that of candidates A & B, I 'd prefer B, if I have to have a Tory MP then surely I'm possibly likely to vote for B when the real election comes.0 -
Sean_F said:
MEP.
All EFDD need to do is suborn another MEP.HYUFD said:David E Indeed, though the EPP group is now claiming ' "First defeat for Eurosceptics! EFDD group disappears with departure of Latvian Iveta Grigule' UK Labour Group Leader Glenis Willmott MEP, said Nigel Farage had suffered a "massive blow". Rather arrogant considering the rise of not just UKIP, but Le Pen and the FN, the Swedish Democrats, AfD and the Swedish Democrats and 5* in the polls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29646414
The EPP's manoeuvres are pathetic.
Following the resignation of their Latvian MEP, the UKIP EU group (EFDD) will need to suborn an MEP from a country which does not already provide the group with an MEP. Not so easily done.0 -
Probably clinched them the seat thoughBeverley_C said:
YesZenPagan said:They are getting publicity for their candidates
C'est la vie, unfortunately....ZenPagan said:...and it is in my opinion a shabby way of trying to get around the electoral expenses law.
I am sure you are right. All parties will try all stunt to get their candidate in. Look at Labour pushing the writ for the Middleton election practically before the previous MP's body had gone cold. That was distasteful too.ZenPagan said:The baseline is if the conservatives get away with not counting it then we can be assured that we will have a lot more of these with the aim not of furthering democracy but of evading the expenses limit.
0 -
Towcester is worth a visit, especially as it's free entry. Good to have a walk round before racing for a workout.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sandown is my favorite track, and ranks in most people's top six.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
I like Kempton too, but avoid the King George (Boxing Day) as it is overcrowded and overpriced. Any other meeting - jumps, flat or all-weather - is fine.
You must at some point try to visit Cheltenham, but I recommend the Open Meeting in November rather than the mayhem that is The Festival.
York is in most people's top three. Cartmel and Fontwell are two are the best small tracks, though these days most small tracks offer pretty good value and excellent facilities.
I dislike Ascot, but it's a personal view.0 -
Crikey, your Dad must have been very well connected or the Dogs was a lot straighter in those days than it became.Peter_the_Punter said:
...Charles said:
I know.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sorry Charles, I meant horseracing, and the track I had in mind was Hurst Park (though strictly it is in Surrey.)Charles said:
Walthamstow Dogs?Peter_the_Punter said:
Correct, Sir! That's ten points to you, and for a bonus twenty, name the other London track closed since WW2.Charles said:
Alexandra Palace surely?Peter_the_Punter said:@AllyPally
Martinez was one of my long-range long odds punts many moons ago, but I've heard little of her since and had assumed she is not in the running.
The other name I don't know, but since I seem to have backed 75% of the field already, I'll let this one pass.
Incidentally, I like the name. Does it commemorate the eponymous racetrack that once thrived in North London?
(No peeking at Wiki.)
The Greyhound Racing track at Walthamstow has, sadly, also been closed down. It was one of the best tracks in country right to the end.
Just wanted to demonstrated to @isam that I'm a man of the people, I am
;-)
It is one of life's little ironies that whilst racing, and betting, condemn many to poverty, it helped my family to escape it. My Dad was well-known for decades as one of the shrewdest punters at Clapton dogs, so despite being working-class in every normal respect we were very comfortably off throughout my entire upbringing.
...
I served with a bloke whose father was killed when he was very young and his widowed mother brought him, his brother and his sister up on her winnings from the horse racing. I met the old lady when she was in her sixties and she had a room full of exercise books in which she had tracked the form and blood lines of racing horses over nearly forty years. She told me her secret was not to to bet often but only when she thought she had a winner at good odds. Had she been around these days I expect the bookies would have banned her. We were abroad when she died and my oppo's sister threw all the form books in a skip, a terrible shame.
As a fine point of interest, the mother of the comedian Michael Bentine paid his Eton School fees from her winnings at the Bridge table. I offered to try the same idea (but for the more modest St Johns College) for my son but Herself wouldn't hear of it.
0 -
YouGov have sure had plenty of 'noteworthy' polls recently. They seem to have a new interesting finding every day.0
-
I meant "Private" in the sense that any club or group is a privately organised venture. The fact that they are asking members of the public to fill in forms is a matter that concerns the Tories and those being asked to fill the forms in.Ishmael_X said:
I'm a half-competent lawyer (retd) and it looks a pretty powerful argument to me. Your definition of "private" seems a bit idiosyncratic
At this point, neither of the two people has been declared as a by-election candidate. Suppose that the Primary showed immense disinterest or the winning person made a witless remark and so neither of them were put forward in the end? You cannot discount that that might happen in which neither was ever a by-election candidate.
How the Tories pick their candidate is a matter for them. There is nothing to stop Labour, UKIP or the LDs from doing exactly the same thing
No, but it might look better than losing a safe seat seven months before the G.E.Ishmael_X said:
. I also doubt whether accidentally empty-chairing themselves out of the most crucial by-election of the millennium so far would make the tories look that good.
Stand and Deliver? Adam Ant Cachet? Not for me.... :-DIshmael_X said:
Loving the idea of "ant cachet" though, very New Romantic.0 -
Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
I would agree with you if it was a closed primary but it wasn't. It was a primary open to the whole electorate of the constituency and the media and the eventual candidate set out their campaign. It was fully reported by the local papers for all constituents to read. How is that different from campaigning?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.........0 -
Yes, I acknowledged that, Hurst.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
The racing fraternity tends to regard both Kempton and Sandown as London, although I agree it is stretching it a bit, especially as regards Sandown.
0 -
Scott Brown polling ahead of Shaheen in NH, hammering her on immigration and has fended off the tired war on women counter. Be a real upset to win that one.0
-
They might get away with the letters but it will be severely criticised. It clearly abuses the spirit of the legislation. Last nights meeting though. Not a chance.Richard_Nabavi said:
I agree, which is why I quoted the crucial sentence from Michael Crick's piece (see my post of 7.14pm).manofkent2014 said:Don't be ridiculous. There was no election at that point. Reckless was still the MP for Rochester. How can he be campaigning when there is no election. My guess is there is no election until the writ is moved (although am ready to be corrected). Until there is an election there is no campaign.
0 -
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
0 -
I might be missing something, but if there is no by election, its a UKIP seat isn't it?Beverley_C said:
I meant "Private" in the sense that any club or group is a privately organised venture. The fact that they are asking members of the public to fill in forms is a matter that concerns the Tories and those being asked to fill the forms in.Ishmael_X said:
I'm a half-competent lawyer (retd) and it looks a pretty powerful argument to me. Your definition of "private" seems a bit idiosyncratic
At this point, neither of the two people has been declared as a by-election candidate. Suppose that the Primary showed immense disinterest or the winning person made a witless remark and so neither of them were put forward in the end? You cannot discount that that might happen in which neither was ever a by-election candidate.
How the Tories pick their candidate is a matter for them. There is nothing to stop Labour, UKIP or the LDs from doing exactly the same thing
No, but it might look better than losing a safe seat seven months before the G.E.Ishmael_X said:
. I also doubt whether accidentally empty-chairing themselves out of the most crucial by-election of the millennium so far would make the tories look that good.
Stand and Deliver? Adam Ant Cachet? Not for me.... :-DIshmael_X said:
Loving the idea of "ant cachet" though, very New Romantic.0 -
Used to go to Cheltenham for gold cup every year but its too pricey now on that day but i go to a lot to their other meetings. Did my first Grand National day this year and loved it.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sandown is my favorite track, and ranks in most people's top six.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
I like Kempton too, but avoid the King George (Boxing Day) as it is overcrowded and overpriced. Any other meeting - jumps, flat or all-weather - is fine.
You must at some point try to visit Cheltenham, but I recommend the Open Meeting in November rather than the mayhem that is The Festival.
York is in most people's top three. Cartmel and Fontwell are two are the best small tracks, though these days most small tracks offer pretty good value and excellent facilities.
I dislike Ascot, but it's a personal view.
Carlisle, Aintree, Sandown, Ludlow and Cheltenham are my favourites so far.
As well as Kempton I want to do Cartmel and Ffos Las (possibly the latter on 28/10/14)
BTW if anyone is interested I have a free ticket for Aintree on 26/10/14 (If anyone wants it first to inbox me can have it) Although I must warn you its Family Fun day.
0 -
Absolutely. The Tories know precisely what they are doing on this. Everything is being flung into the battle against Reckless - absolutely everything. I've spoken to my CCHQ contacts in the past couple of days and they are totally resolved. Clacton was fine. At Rochester UKIP has to be stopped.Richard_Nabavi said:From the Michael Crick piece which Mike links to:
the letter from David Cameron to Rochester voters went out just before the writ was moved, so the Tories will no doubt argue that legally the cost cannot be included as part of their election spending.
That surely means the cost is definitively not included in the campaign limit.
There are other wheezes as well. I'm sure it will all be above board, but I would expect that the effective spend on this by-election by the Conservatives will be considerable.
The all-postal primary is very smart and will provide a great platform to build awareness of Anna and Kelly.
0 -
Election is void and is re-run I think.isam said:
If the Tories were disqualified the MP would be Mark Reckless wouldnt it?Ishmael_X said:
I'm a half-competent lawyer (retd) and it looks a pretty powerful argument to me. Your definition of "private" seems a bit idiosyncratic. I also doubt whether accidentally empty-chairing themselves out of the most crucial by-election of the millennium so far would make the tories look that good.Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
Loving the idea of "ant cachet" though, very New Romantic.
0 -
On these matters I don't think you can go far wrong with following Mr. Punter's recommendations. For myself I detest Ascot, not keen on Goodwood (though I have done well there) and am not a National Hunt fan (too damn cold). I do like the smaller courses though. I think possibly my favourite is Windsor, especially for evening meetings - nothing special but it just has a nice atmosphere about it. I do also enjoy a day out at Plumpton, my local course, If ever you decide to get down to it do let me know in advance and I'll buy you a glass or three.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?0 -
The letters are the expensive bit.manofkent2014 said:They might get away with the letters but it will be severely criticised. It clearly abuses the spirit of the legislation. Last nights meeting though. Not a chance.
Incidentally, I did point out at the time that UKIP were every ill-advised to make a big song-and-dance about the donation from Arron Banks. They should have just quietly banked the cheque (assuming it existed of course).
0 -
It was £10 when I went is it free now?woody662 said:
Towcester is worth a visit, especially as it's free entry. Good to have a walk round before racing for a workout.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sandown is my favorite track, and ranks in most people's top six.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
I like Kempton too, but avoid the King George (Boxing Day) as it is overcrowded and overpriced. Any other meeting - jumps, flat or all-weather - is fine.
You must at some point try to visit Cheltenham, but I recommend the Open Meeting in November rather than the mayhem that is The Festival.
York is in most people's top three. Cartmel and Fontwell are two are the best small tracks, though these days most small tracks offer pretty good value and excellent facilities.
I dislike Ascot, but it's a personal view.0 -
Would be a good move by UKIP to announce another defection in the build up to this oneMikeSmithson said:
Absolutely. The Tories know precisely what they are doing on this. Everything is being flung into the battle against Reckless - absolutely everything. I've spoken to my CCHQ contacts in the past couple of days and they are totally resolved. Clacton was fine. At Rochester UKIP has to be stopped.Richard_Nabavi said:From the Michael Crick piece which Mike links to:
the letter from David Cameron to Rochester voters went out just before the writ was moved, so the Tories will no doubt argue that legally the cost cannot be included as part of their election spending.
That surely means the cost is definitively not included in the campaign limit.
There are other wheezes as well. I'm sure it will all be above board, but I would expect that the effective spend on this by-election by the Conservatives will be considerable.
The all-postal primary is very smart and will provide a great platform to build awareness of Anna and Kelly.0 -
In theory yes but you have to think of the cost of these things and whether it is worth it. Court proceedings tend to be expensive so really there needs to be something to gain from the particular incident. After all if it happens again and UKIP are disadvantaged they can always challenge then and win.Luckyguy1983 said:
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affair organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
Of course contacting the Electoral Commission and seeing whether they might take it forward would do no harm.0 -
I willHurstLlama said:
On these matters I don't think you can go far wrong with following Mr. Punter's recommendations. For myself I detest Ascot, not keen on Goodwood (though I have done well there) and am not a National Hunt fan (too damn cold). I do like the smaller courses though. I think possibly my favourite is Windsor, especially for evening meetings - nothing special but it just has a nice atmosphere about it. I do also enjoy a day out at Plumpton, my local course, If ever you decide to get down to it do let me know in advance and I'll buy you a glass or three.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
thanks0 -
MikeSmithson said:
Absolutely. The Tories know precisely what they are doing on this. Everything is being flung into the battle against Reckless - absolutely everything. I've spoken to my CCHQ contacts in the past couple of days and they are totally resolved. Clacton was fine. At Rochester UKIP has to be stopped.Richard_Nabavi said:From the Michael Crick piece which Mike links to:
the letter from David Cameron to Rochester voters went out just before the writ was moved, so the Tories will no doubt argue that legally the cost cannot be included as part of their election spending.
That surely means the cost is definitively not included in the campaign limit.
There are other wheezes as well. I'm sure it will all be above board, but I would expect that the effective spend on this by-election by the Conservatives will be considerable.
The all-postal primary is very smart and will provide a great platform to build awareness of Anna and Kelly.
After doing all that and UKIP win,cameron finished ? or the tories ?
0 -
The UKIP percentage has grown by 1% for each of the last 6 polls: 14,15,16,17,18,19isam said:
UKIP out of the teens?numbercruncher said:Sun hinting that UKIP (and possibility the Greens too?) are in for a good YouGov poll tonight...
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/5228158132971438080 -
Whisper it quietly because nobody will ever admit it but there's a gentleman's agreement between the parties not to challenge each other's election expenses. It's actually in all their interests not to do so.Luckyguy1983 said:
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
If UKIP want to break that then retaliation will quickly follow. All UKIP sets of expenses will be scrutinised and challenged all the time.
0 -
Nice try... but your ad hominem attack fails at the first hurdle. I am not a tory, I have never been a tory and I very much doubt I will ever be a tory. I have never joined any political party although I have helped a very good friend who is a Lib Dem local election agent and have signed candidacy papers for a number of LDs and one Green.ZenPagan said:
Frankly that is an apalling attitude to have, millions gave their lives to protect our freedoms and our idea of democracy. Such an attitude is spitting in their faces for party tribalism. You should be ashamed of yourself and your partyBeverley_C said:
C'est la vie, unfortunately....
.
Besides, democracy is not being threatened here. The election will take place and everyone will abide by the result. The electors shall decide. That is democracy.
0 -
If all else fails for the Tories in Rochester, maybe they could try Labour's Thurrock tactics?
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 47m47 minutes ago
Shocking to hear Labour activists in #wtss by-election speak of UKIP wanting gas chambers to voters today. Please condemn @ThurrockPolly?
Think of the ukip equivalent, and imagine the headlines
0 -
I really don't see that the Banks thing would have made much difference. Your lot were on a mission. Actually I still think it could be challenged though given that it may not be when the letters were sent out that is the important bit but when they landed on the voters doormat. IIRC the first reports of the letters being received were not until after the writ was moved?Richard_Nabavi said:
The letters are the expensive bit.manofkent2014 said:They might get away with the letters but it will be severely criticised. It clearly abuses the spirit of the legislation. Last nights meeting though. Not a chance.
Incidentally, I did point out at the time that UKIP were every ill-advised to make a big song-and-dance about the donation from Arron Banks. They should have just quietly banked the cheque (assuming it existed of course).0 -
@HurstLlama
The old man reckoned few tracks were straight, but Clapton was one. Walthamstow and Wimbledon were too, probably, but he stuck to Clapton - religiously, twice a week. As a consequence, he got to know the form inside out and that knowledge gave him sufficient edge to outplay any fiddling that might be going on.
He rarely bet on the horses, because he thought the form was insufficiently exposed. I'm sure he would have approved of the lady's methods though.
Eton of course would have welcomed with open arms any pupil who was the scion of a successful punter. The School has a long association with the turf including none other than former jockey and trainer, Charlie Brooks.
If the School doesn't breed character, it certainly breeds characters!0 -
A couple more weeks for that I think. Give some time for things to settle down after the Tories have announced their candidate, and then unleash the third defector - if there is one.isam said:
Would be a good move by UKIP to announce another defection in the build up to this oneMikeSmithson said:
Absolutely. The Tories know precisely what they are doing on this. Everything is being flung into the battle against Reckless - absolutely everything. I've spoken to my CCHQ contacts in the past couple of days and they are totally resolved. Clacton was fine. At Rochester UKIP has to be stopped.Richard_Nabavi said:From the Michael Crick piece which Mike links to:
the letter from David Cameron to Rochester voters went out just before the writ was moved, so the Tories will no doubt argue that legally the cost cannot be included as part of their election spending.
That surely means the cost is definitively not included in the campaign limit.
There are other wheezes as well. I'm sure it will all be above board, but I would expect that the effective spend on this by-election by the Conservatives will be considerable.
The all-postal primary is very smart and will provide a great platform to build awareness of Anna and Kelly.0 -
The additional theoretical 4 cases per million estimated by the study would result in a total of 330,004 incidents of cancer instead of 330,000, yielding an increased risk of 0.0012 percent. This number was confirmed in correspondence with Dr. Lisa McKenzie, the lead investigator on the CSPH study.
The exaggerated 66 percent increase stated by fracking opponents to build opposition to fracking and sway government officials to ban fracking overstates the true findings of the study 55,000 times.Tapestry said:
Do you prefer to trust the Denver Post which is no doubt privately owned by someone with good connections, and can write whatever it likes, or the Colorado School Of Health? Take your pick. The arithmetic is entirely correct. The rate at which excess cases arise is precisely 66% higher within the half mile. The population was not 1 million, as you assume.CarlottaVance said:
If a population of one million people lived within a half-mile of those wells there would be an excess of 10 cancers over base rates and for a million people living more than a half-mile away there would an excess of six cases.
Environmentalists took the difference between those two numbers (10 and 6) and made the calculation that there was a 66 percent increase in risk in the half-mile zone. A simple bit of arithmetic that is completely wrong.
The overall age-adjusted incidence of cancer in a population of a million men and women was about 4,600 between 2004 and 2008, according to the National Institute of Cancer.
The lifetime risk rate for getting a cancer is 44.8 percent for men and 38 percent for women, according to the American Cancer Society.
In a population of one million 10 excess cancer cases would represent something in the order of 0.25 percent increase and six excess cases would be 0.15 percent increase. So, the difference is not 66 percent, but 0.1 percent
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2013/06/18/a-tricky-calculation-the-risk-of-cancer-from-drilling/10063/2/
.Tapestry said:
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate.
- Colorado School of Public Health0 -
No. He stood down as an MP on 30th Sept. There is currently no MP for the constitiuency, that is what triggered the by-election.isam said:
I might be missing something, but if there is no by election, its a UKIP seat isn't it?
0 -
Labour really are the nasty smearing party.isam said:If all else fails for the Tories in Rochester, maybe they could try Labour's Thurrock tactics?
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 47m47 minutes ago
Shocking to hear Labour activists in #wtss by-election speak of UKIP wanting gas chambers to voters today. Please condemn @ThurrockPolly?
Think of the ukip equivalent, and imagine the headlines
0 -
Ah rightoBeverley_C said:
No. He stood down as an MP on 30th Sept. There is currently no MP for the constitiuency, that is what triggered the by-election.isam said:
I might be missing something, but if there is no by election, its a UKIP seat isn't it?0 -
Nothing like doing things the establishment way?MikeSmithson said:
Whisper it quietly because nobody will ever admit it but there's a gentleman's agreement between the parties not to challenge each other's election expenses. It's actually in all their interests not to do so.Luckyguy1983 said:
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
If UKIP want to break that then retaliation will quickly follow. All UKIP sets of expenses will be scrutinised and challenged all the time.0 -
The obvious solution would be to open the primary process up to any party that wants to take part, so that as well as ballot papers for the Tory selection being sent out, people could also vote on who the Labour candidate would be, who the UKIP candidate would be, etc, and then everyone would be on a level playing field.OldKingCole said:Mr Pagan, I agree that the whole issue of "primaries" has to be regularised, or at least recognised.
So far as I am aware "primaries" in the US are subject to rules, although these vary from state to state; we don't have any such rules.
Writing to all electors within the "obvious period of the election" is surely electioneering. If I, as a non-Tory elector, decide that of candidates A & B, I 'd prefer B, if I have to have a Tory MP then surely I'm possibly likely to vote for B when the real election comes.
For some strange reason the Coalition proposal to fund open primaries in ~50 safe seats died even more thoroughly than the recall mechanism.0 -
Yes, Towcester is free and another excellent small track.bigjohnowls said:
It was £10 when I went is it free now?woody662 said:
Towcester is worth a visit, especially as it's free entry. Good to have a walk round before racing for a workout.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sandown is my favorite track, and ranks in most people's top six.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
I like Kempton too, but avoid the King George (Boxing Day) as it is overcrowded and overpriced. Any other meeting - jumps, flat or all-weather - is fine.
You must at some point try to visit Cheltenham, but I recommend the Open Meeting in November rather than the mayhem that is The Festival.
York is in most people's top three. Cartmel and Fontwell are two are the best small tracks, though these days most small tracks offer pretty good value and excellent facilities.
I dislike Ascot, but it's a personal view.
The stiff finish favours out-and-out stayers and course specialists. For some reason, not all punters seem to be aware of this, so it offers great punting opportunities, in my experience anyway.
0 -
FalseFlag 1 poll, Shaheen leads Brown by 3.5% in the RCP poll average
0 -
and PR (or some variant like PR^2) becomes more likely by the day.Carola said:@tnewtondunn 1m1 minute ago
More bad news for Tories and Labour in our @YouGov later tonight. Another combined % new low in this Parliament; 4 / 5 party politics grows.
i) if hung parliaments are to be the rule rather than the exception, one of the last justifications propping up FPTP is kicked away.
ii) four parties operating in a system built for two is almost guaranteed to produce even more bizarre outcomes compared to votes; people elected with <25% in a seat, wrong-winner outcomes, UKIP 20%+ nationally - next to no seats, etc...
iii) there is a risk that one (or more) of the four parties loses its major-party position and becomes shut-out, as the system morphs back into its original two-party configuration. See the Liberals in the 1920s. This risk is why European countries adopted PR a hundred years ago.
I wrote an article exploring this at the time of the AV referendum.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/25/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-av-through-the-looking-glass/0 -
Briskin and co live at 2024
Charles Kennedy, panelist on Bbc's question time tonight - has been previously caught smoking a cigarette with his head out the window on a train.
Briskin and co's advise to Mr Kennedy is to consider smoking in the loos - because we know what happened to Vivian on the Young Ones (episode where Vivian was on the way to University Challenge) !0 -
I like Goodwood, if only for the stunning view across the Sussex Downs. And I'm a NH man, as you probably know. But I do like Windsor - hot summer evenings, cool breeze from the river, champagne, beautiful girls down from the City........Where was I? Oh, yes; Plumpton. Very good. Love it.HurstLlama said:
On these matters I don't think you can go far wrong with following Mr. Punter's recommendations. For myself I detest Ascot, not keen on Goodwood (though I have done well there) and am not a National Hunt fan (too damn cold). I do like the smaller courses though. I think possibly my favourite is Windsor, especially for evening meetings - nothing special but it just has a nice atmosphere about it. I do also enjoy a day out at Plumpton, my local course, If ever you decide to get down to it do let me know in advance and I'll buy you a glass or three.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
See you there one day?
0 -
Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.0
-
Good to see not only Britain has politicised courts and CPS:
Wonder if the British Vishinishky is aiding the Political Commissars in Greece.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/greece-golden-dawn-mps-tried-criminal-offences
0 -
Oh, and Betfair today makes NOM odds-on for the first time in this parliament...
1.970 -
Its a rewriting of history... they did try to smear Carswell when he defected, but gave up when it became obvious he was going to win by a street and they would just look bitterdodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
Now they are pretending "This time it's different" and that they gave Carswell an easy ride
"Quit making mischief over data smears ...
Tory HQ is apparently briefing that I have misused data belonging to the Conservative party. This is simply not so.
Any data that I might have helped gather for the Conservative party while a member of the Conservative party is rightly property of the Conservative party and must remain so.
At no point in my campaign will I, or indeed, UKIP use any data obtained from the Conservative party or from Merlin. It is mischievous to suggest otherwise."
http://www.talkcarswell.com/
0 -
The BBC is reporting that No 10 is floating a points system for EU migration... not just an emergency brake.0
-
The pantomime "surprise"at the UKIP conference is what leads me to classify him as an arsehat.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
I don't buy the "treachery" talk though. We elect MPs not parties and an MP's allegiance is to his constituents, not his party whips.
0 -
Reckless looks easier to bully and blackguard, so the bullies pick on him?dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
0 -
I am no expert, but wouldn't the changing of a treaty like that trigger a referendum anyway?Socrates said:The BBC is reporting that No 10 is floating a points system for EU migration... not just an emergency brake.
Actually that's the Labour and LibDem line I think
They obviously are going to pretend they can do the points based system as the candidates for R&S were bigging it up last night0 -
No, because it wouldn't be a transfer of power to Brussels.isam said:
I am no expert, but wouldn't the changing of a treaty like that trigger a referendum anyway?Socrates said:The BBC is reporting that No 10 is floating a points system for EU migration... not just an emergency brake.
Actually that's the Labour and LibDem line I think
They obviously are going to pretend they can do the points based system as the candidates for R&S were bigging it up last night0 -
Did we ever get to the bottom of the Gloucester affair? UKIP invited all and sundry to present their third defector. Must have been an MP who got cold feet at the last moment...0
-
NOM is possible, but only if Labour do badly in scotland and lose more that 10-15 seats to the SNP there.RodCrosby said:Oh, and Betfair today makes NOM odds-on for the first time in this parliament...
1.97
Unfortunately we have to wait for the next Ashcroft poll (finally he is doing one in scotland).
0 -
No. The referendum is only triggered by a transfer of powers to Brussels, not a transfer in the opposite direction.isam said:
I am no expert, but wouldn't the changing of a treaty like that trigger a referendum anyway?Socrates said:The BBC is reporting that No 10 is floating a points system for EU migration... not just an emergency brake.
Actually that's the Labour and LibDem line I think
They obviously are going to pretend they can do the points based system as the candidates for R&S were bigging it up last night0 -
A nice little stitch-up so that they get away with flouting the law? Between LibLabCon? Why am I not surprised.MikeSmithson said:
Whisper it quietly because nobody will ever admit it but there's a gentleman's agreement between the parties not to challenge each other's election expenses. It's actually in all their interests not to do so.Luckyguy1983 said:
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
If UKIP want to break that then retaliation will quickly follow. All UKIP sets of expenses will be scrutinised and challenged all the time.0 -
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.0 -
I disagree and have stated so for yonks. The odds were far too short on Labour OM and far too long on Con...Speedy said:
NOM is possible, but only if Labour do badly in scotland and lose more that 10-15 seats to the SNP there.RodCrosby said:Oh, and Betfair today makes NOM odds-on for the first time in this parliament...
1.97
Unfortunately we have to wait for the next Ashcroft poll (finally he is doing one in scotland).0 -
PB getting by-election fever.
We'll all have plenty of words to fit into our posts - plenty of words to write. It's like a puzzle.
Event-
A Ukip favourite by-election
Response-
Type as much as you want whenever you want.
.
0 -
Are you sure about that Mr S, Sir? Don't recall it applying when I was an agent. Seem to recall being told to look at the "others" expenses, especially if the result was close. However, that was a while ago!Socrates said:
A nice little stitch-up so that they get away with flouting the law? Between LibLabCon? Why am I not surprised.MikeSmithson said:
Whisper it quietly because nobody will ever admit it but there's a gentleman's agreement between the parties not to challenge each other's election expenses. It's actually in all their interests not to do so.Luckyguy1983 said:
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
If UKIP want to break that then retaliation will quickly follow. All UKIP sets of expenses will be scrutinised and challenged all the time.
Incidentally, am looking forward to the Essex racecourse, which actually looks as if it might happen!0 -
Rees-Mogg? It's vaguely his neck of the woods. and he was dining w Stuart Wheeler yesterday in the HofCItajai said:Did we ever get to the bottom of the Gloucester affair? UKIP invited all and sundry to present their third defector. Must have been an MP who got cold feet at the last moment...
0 -
I see John Spencer Churchill, 11th Duke of Marlborough has passed awaY, RIP
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-296441290 -
Sky News
Important issues to R&S Voters
1) Immigration 29%
2) Economy 13%0 -
0
-
Maybe he wanted to talk about Spread Betting and the lack of spread betting markets on the next election.Peter_the_Punter said:@Isam
"...He was dining w Stuart Wheeler yesterday in the HofC "
Maybe he was just hungry.0 -
Farage will hope to have that story saved for his biography in ~20 years time.Itajai said:Did we ever get to the bottom of the Gloucester affair? UKIP invited all and sundry to present their third defector. Must have been an MP who got cold feet at the last moment...
0 -
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.
0 -
Stuart Wheeler was shunted out of IG long long agoTheScreamingEagles said:
Maybe he wanted to talk about Spread Betting and the lack of spread betting markets on the next election.Peter_the_Punter said:@Isam
"...He was dining w Stuart Wheeler yesterday in the HofC "
Maybe he was just hungry.0 -
There is no way the Tories can gain 30 seats from the LD while losing none in order to get a majority.RodCrosby said:
I disagree and have stated so for yonks. The odds were far too short on Labour OM and far too long on Con...Speedy said:
NOM is possible, but only if Labour do badly in scotland and lose more that 10-15 seats to the SNP there.RodCrosby said:Oh, and Betfair today makes NOM odds-on for the first time in this parliament...
1.97
Unfortunately we have to wait for the next Ashcroft poll (finally he is doing one in scotland).
In contrast there a are dozens and dozens of Tory seats that Labour can get.
Even a swing of 1% to Labour and the LD at 7-8%, the Tories still don't get a majority.
With a 2% swing the Tories start to lose more seats that gaining from the LD's.
With a 3% swing Labour becomes the largest party.
Labour needs just above a 4% swing to get a majority, while the Tories need a 0% swing and the LD bellow 8%, something impossible because those LD votes have to go somewhere.0 -
I don't think those agreements apply to UKIP. The gloves came off a while ago as far as the other parties are concerned; I really don't see any of them staying their hands if they had a chance to challenge UKIPs election expenses.MikeSmithson said:
Whisper it quietly because nobody will ever admit it but there's a gentleman's agreement between the parties not to challenge each other's election expenses. It's actually in all their interests not to do so.Luckyguy1983 said:
If UKIP win, certainly they should challenge it, if they have a case. Just because it doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it won't in another. You can't let people off the hook like that -you need to finish the job. In the relief of their euros victory, did UKIP pursue the Electoral Commission to try and ensure something like AIFE never happens again? I've never heard that they did. Nor did I hear that those foster parents ever got their foster children back.manofkent2014 said:
You don't submit your expenses until after the election and therefore any challenge will not happen until after the result has been decided. Now if the Tories have lost I doubt there will be a challenge. If they win and would seem to have overspent then there would be a challenge. Now whether that challenge could be addressed before the general election is anyone's guess. However given its high profile I suspect there is an even chance it could be dealt with before to next May. If so do the Tories really want the ignominy of one of their MPs thrown out for electoral impropriety?Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
If UKIP want to break that then retaliation will quickly follow. All UKIP sets of expenses will be scrutinised and challenged all the time.0 -
Really? Have you seen his voting record?Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.0 -
Windsor is my local track and as you say the Monday evening meetings are really good, great atmosphere. Ascot is fine apart from the madness of the Royal meeting, I like Brighton as wellPeter_the_Punter said:
I like Goodwood, if only for the stunning view across the Sussex Downs. And I'm a NH man, as you probably know. But I do like Windsor - hot summer evenings, cool breeze from the river, champagne, beautiful girls down from the City........Where was I? Oh, yes; Plumpton. Very good. Love it.HurstLlama said:
On these matters I don't think you can go far wrong with following Mr. Punter's recommendations. For myself I detest Ascot, not keen on Goodwood (though I have done well there) and am not a National Hunt fan (too damn cold). I do like the smaller courses though. I think possibly my favourite is Windsor, especially for evening meetings - nothing special but it just has a nice atmosphere about it. I do also enjoy a day out at Plumpton, my local course, If ever you decide to get down to it do let me know in advance and I'll buy you a glass or three.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
See you there one day?
Will happily meet anyone at Windsor one Monday next summer0 -
What is needed is a change in the benefits system so that you no longer qualify simply by being "habitually resident". It might seem like the tail wagging the dog - to change the benefit qualification method to effect a reduction in immigration - but the current system is not fit for purpose in a global economy or in an EU with freedom of movement and big disparities between member countries' relative wealth.isam said:
I am no expert, but wouldn't the changing of a treaty like that trigger a referendum anyway?Socrates said:The BBC is reporting that No 10 is floating a points system for EU migration... not just an emergency brake.
Actually that's the Labour and LibDem line I think
They obviously are going to pretend they can do the points based system as the candidates for R&S were bigging it up last night
A 10-year qualification period for British citizens and migrants alike should do the trick.
Alternatively we should look at other EU countries and see how they do it (oh no you can't, it violates the "not invented here" rule).
There are others things that could change more quickly, like not paying child benefit in respect of non-resident children.
0 -
@OKC
"Incidentally, am looking forward to the Essex racecourse, which actually looks as if it might happen! "
Yes it's a near certainty.
It the flat, of course, but I hear good things about it and being near to Chelmsford no more than 40 mins from me.0 -
The implication being that Rod expects a swing away from Labour and to the Conservatives. This is possible if, and only if, Labour lose more votes to the Tories, UKIP and the Greens then they gain from the Lib Dems.Speedy said:
There is no way the Tories can gain 30 seats from the LD while losing none in order to get a majority.RodCrosby said:
I disagree and have stated so for yonks. The odds were far too short on Labour OM and far too long on Con...Speedy said:
NOM is possible, but only if Labour do badly in scotland and lose more that 10-15 seats to the SNP there.RodCrosby said:Oh, and Betfair today makes NOM odds-on for the first time in this parliament...
1.97
Unfortunately we have to wait for the next Ashcroft poll (finally he is doing one in scotland).
In contrast there a are dozens and dozens of Tory seats that Labour can get.
Even a swing of 1% to Labour and the LD at 7-8%, the Tories still don't get a majority.
With a 2% swing the Tories start to lose more seats that gaining from the LD's.
With a 3% swing Labour becomes the largest party.
Labour needs just above a 4% swing to get a majority, while the Tories need a 0% swing and the LD bellow 8%, something impossible because those LD votes have to go somewhere.0 -
Reckless or Carswell?isam said:
Really? Have you seen his voting record?Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.
That was the perception anyway.
Probably the difference between new ideas v rebelling, if I understand you.0 -
Remind me nearer the time, Nigel.nigel4england said:
Windsor is my local track and as you say the Monday evening meetings are really good, great atmosphere. Ascot is fine apart from the madness of the Royal meeting, I like Brighton as wellPeter_the_Punter said:
I like Goodwood, if only for the stunning view across the Sussex Downs. And I'm a NH man, as you probably know. But I do like Windsor - hot summer evenings, cool breeze from the river, champagne, beautiful girls down from the City........Where was I? Oh, yes; Plumpton. Very good. Love it.HurstLlama said:
On these matters I don't think you can go far wrong with following Mr. Punter's recommendations. For myself I detest Ascot, not keen on Goodwood (though I have done well there) and am not a National Hunt fan (too damn cold). I do like the smaller courses though. I think possibly my favourite is Windsor, especially for evening meetings - nothing special but it just has a nice atmosphere about it. I do also enjoy a day out at Plumpton, my local course, If ever you decide to get down to it do let me know in advance and I'll buy you a glass or three.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
See you there one day?
Will happily meet anyone at Windsor one Monday next summer
Maybe we could organise a little PB outing. It's the perfect course for that. You don't have to be remotely interested in racing to enjoy it and I cannot imagine anywhere better to take a first time racegoer.
Brighton is another favorite of mine (I have quite a few), mainly for its convivial atmosphere.
0 -
I don't think they'll count the expenditure until afterwards, in which case I guess they'd need a re-run.isam said:
If the Tories were disqualified the MP would be Mark Reckless wouldnt it?Ishmael_X said:
I'm a half-competent lawyer (retd) and it looks a pretty powerful argument to me. Your definition of "private" seems a bit idiosyncratic. I also doubt whether accidentally empty-chairing themselves out of the most crucial by-election of the millennium so far would make the tories look that good.Beverley_C said:
No it does not. They are standing as candidates in a Primary and not as candidates in a By-election. One is a private affir organised by a group of people whereas the other puts someone into Parliament. Any half competent lawyer should be able to sort it out.manofkent2014 said:
The argument seems rock solid and certainly extremely persuasive.
If that did happen, I would find it rather amusing but for the Tories it could be useful. Being disqualified from the election means you cannot lose it and removes ant cachet from the winner because they were not up against the main contender.manofkent2014 said:Shapps will need to be very careful coz whatever happens his candidate could end up in court being disqualified
Loving the idea of "ant cachet" though, very New Romantic.0 -
I think there is a lot of perception vs reality there..Grandiose said:
Reckless or Carswell?isam said:
Really? Have you seen his voting record?Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.
That was the perception anyway.
Probably the difference between new ideas v rebelling, if I understand you.
"While a Conservative MP, Reckless was noted for his rebelliousness; he cast 56 votes against the whip between 2010 and 2014, making him the 13th most rebellious Conservative in the period.
On 31 October 2012, Reckless led a rebellion of 53 Conservative MPs which inflicted the first House of Commons defeat (307 votes to 294) on the Coalition government. The Tory rebels voted with Labour MPs to pass an amendment calling for a real-terms cut in the 2014-2020 EU budget multi-annual financial framework. The coalition government supported only a real-terms freeze in the EU budget as a minimum. The amendment was not binding on the government, but damaged Prime Minister David Cameron's authority on Europe before key EU Budget negotiations in November 2012.[26] As a result of leading the successful rebellion, Reckless was voted 'Backbencher of the Year' by the Conservatives[27] and finished 3rd in a ConservativeHome poll of 'backbencher of the year', though the site's editor Tim Montgomerie announced that "if UKIP readers had been included in the poll Mark Reckless would have topped the vote.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless0 -
And the Tories losing less votes to UKIP than Labour, as I said impossible.OblitusSumMe said:
The implication being that Rod expects a swing away from Labour and to the Conservatives. This is possible if, and only if, Labour lose more votes to the Tories, UKIP and the Greens then they gain from the Lib Dems.Speedy said:
There is no way the Tories can gain 30 seats from the LD while losing none in order to get a majority.RodCrosby said:
I disagree and have stated so for yonks. The odds were far too short on Labour OM and far too long on Con...Speedy said:
NOM is possible, but only if Labour do badly in scotland and lose more that 10-15 seats to the SNP there.RodCrosby said:Oh, and Betfair today makes NOM odds-on for the first time in this parliament...
1.97
Unfortunately we have to wait for the next Ashcroft poll (finally he is doing one in scotland).
In contrast there a are dozens and dozens of Tory seats that Labour can get.
Even a swing of 1% to Labour and the LD at 7-8%, the Tories still don't get a majority.
With a 2% swing the Tories start to lose more seats that gaining from the LD's.
With a 3% swing Labour becomes the largest party.
Labour needs just above a 4% swing to get a majority, while the Tories need a 0% swing and the LD bellow 8%, something impossible because those LD votes have to go somewhere.
It's way too complicated and difficult for the Tories to get a majority than Labour.0 -
Reckless was more of a Tory Establishment figure: Oxford PPE and CCHQ, so perhaps the sense of betrayal was greater. Carswell went to the University of East Anglia, wherever that is.Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.0 -
You say rebelled. I say, obsessed one trick pony. Plus he was at Herbert Smith so ****soup king. Perceptions are key, aren't they.isam said:
I think there is a lot of perception vs reality there..Grandiose said:
Reckless or Carswell?isam said:
Really? Have you seen his voting record?Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.
That was the perception anyway.
Probably the difference between new ideas v rebelling, if I understand you.
"While a Conservative MP, Reckless was noted for his rebelliousness; he cast 56 votes against the whip between 2010 and 2014, making him the 13th most rebellious Conservative in the period.
On 31 October 2012, Reckless led a rebellion of 53 Conservative MPs which inflicted the first House of Commons defeat (307 votes to 294) on the Coalition government. The Tory rebels voted with Labour MPs to pass an amendment calling for a real-terms cut in the 2014-2020 EU budget multi-annual financial framework. The coalition government supported only a real-terms freeze in the EU budget as a minimum. The amendment was not binding on the government, but damaged Prime Minister David Cameron's authority on Europe before key EU Budget negotiations in November 2012.[26] As a result of leading the successful rebellion, Reckless was voted 'Backbencher of the Year' by the Conservatives[27] and finished 3rd in a ConservativeHome poll of 'backbencher of the year', though the site's editor Tim Montgomerie announced that "if UKIP readers had been included in the poll Mark Reckless would have topped the vote.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Reckless0 -
Haven't really kept up with the news today. What's the current situation with Lord Freud? Has Miliband sustained the relentless pressure of yesterday, and if so can Lord Freud survive beyond the weekend?0
-
He was also at London. I was in tutorials with him, which I had entirely forgot until reminded by my wife. Tweed wearer from an early age.DecrepitJohnL said:
Reckless was more of a Tory Establishment figure: Oxford PPE and CCHQ, so perhaps the sense of betrayal was greater. Carswell went to the University of East Anglia, wherever that is.Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.0 -
You're projecting.DecrepitJohnL said:
Reckless was more of a Tory Establishment figure: Oxford PPE and CCHQ, so perhaps the sense of betrayal was greater. Carswell went to the University of East Anglia, wherever that is.Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.
I was absolutely gutted by Carswell's defection, he's always been a thinker, and some of his policies and articles/books/pamphlets are great reading.
You might always not agree with his conclusions, but everyone agrees, that he's put a lot of thought and research into it.
I'd be similarly gutted if Dan Hannan defected.
Ultimately Carswell's defection, will be more damaging to the Tory Party than Reckless' defection.0 -
Suggest you use other sources of information rather than the BBC, Guardian and Labour Weekly. Try Guido. http://order-order.com/2014/10/16/charity-condemning-freud-packed-with-labour-supporters/Stark_Dawning said:Haven't really kept up with the news today. What's the current situation with Lord Freud? Has Miliband sustained the relentless pressure of yesterday, and if so can Lord Freud survive beyond the weekend?
0 -
I agree, he is a great guyTheScreamingEagles said:
You're projecting.DecrepitJohnL said:
Reckless was more of a Tory Establishment figure: Oxford PPE and CCHQ, so perhaps the sense of betrayal was greater. Carswell went to the University of East Anglia, wherever that is.Grandiose said:
Carswell was always independently minded. Reckless wasn't.TheScreamingEagles said:
Defectors lie, that's to be expected.dodrade said:Can someone please explain why all the Conservative venom has been directed at Reckless and none at Carswell? I understand the former is a lot less personally popular in tory circles than the latter but I don't see how Reckless has been any more or less "treacherous" than Carswell. Of course he lied about his intentions (so did Carswell, albeit much less recently) that's what defectors do before they defect, it's no excuse for tory self-righteousness.
It was the timing of it.
Maximised to destabilise the Tory conference is what has earned him the ire of the Tory party.
Short of defecting during David Cameron's speech, I can't think of a more damaging time to defect.
I also despise Reckless, because I was guest editing PB the day he defected.
That Saturday I wanted a quiet Saturday afternoon, he and later Brooks Newmark's todger derailed that plan.
I was absolutely gutted by Carswell's defection, he's always been a thinker, and some of his policies and articles/books/pamphlets are great reading.
You might always agree with his conclusions, but everyone agrees, that he's put a lot of thought and research into it.
I'd be similarly gutted if Dan Hannan defected.
Ultimately Carswell's defection, will be more damaging to the Tory Party than Reckless' defection.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · 14m14 minutes ago
"One last go" at EU migration curbs promises Mr Cameron. He's yet to try once after four years. #NotSerious http://bbc.in/1u8t0l4
0 -
Matt I was at the College of Law with Mark too, in fact I went to birthday drinks at his Soho flat and Dan Hannan turned up! Reckless went to Marlborough, Carswell to Charterhouse, and Carswell did a Master's at King's London, both were sons of medics, apart from Oxford they are basically the same class0
-
I'm not sure that humour always carries well on the internet.weejonnie said:
Suggest you use other sources of information rather than the BBC, Guardian and Labour Weekly. Try Guido. http://order-order.com/2014/10/16/charity-condemning-freud-packed-with-labour-supporters/Stark_Dawning said:Haven't really kept up with the news today. What's the current situation with Lord Freud? Has Miliband sustained the relentless pressure of yesterday, and if so can Lord Freud survive beyond the weekend?
0 -
A PB outing to Plumpton races? That sounds a jolly idea! Get Mr Owls down from his northern fastness, maybe a few others from the other side of Watford, the London/Surrey crowd are within an easy train ride then there are the Sussex contingent. Could be a spiffing day out.Peter_the_Punter said:
I like Goodwood, if only for the stunning view across the Sussex Downs. And I'm a NH man, as you probably know. But I do like Windsor - hot summer evenings, cool breeze from the river, champagne, beautiful girls down from the City........Where was I? Oh, yes; Plumpton. Very good. Love it.HurstLlama said:
On these matters I don't think you can go far wrong with following Mr. Punter's recommendations. For myself I detest Ascot, not keen on Goodwood (though I have done well there) and am not a National Hunt fan (too damn cold). I do like the smaller courses though. I think possibly my favourite is Windsor, especially for evening meetings - nothing special but it just has a nice atmosphere about it. I do also enjoy a day out at Plumpton, my local course, If ever you decide to get down to it do let me know in advance and I'll buy you a glass or three.bigjohnowls said:
I have been to Sandown amongst the 31 tracks i have visited so far.HurstLlama said:@Peter_the_Punter
"... So London is left with just Kempton and Sandown now, although happily both are prospering."
Point of order Mr. Chairman, both Kempton and Sandown are in Surrey not London. Kempton Park is essentially just over the river from the old Hurst Park course and Sandown is in Esher.
London does not have a horse racing course.
I certainly rank it in my top 5.
Not yet visited Kempton but i intend to at some point during this NH season.Any meeting you recommend?
See you there one day?0 -
Moaning about the Primary and election funding looks like UKIP sour grapes.0
-
I also canvassed for Mark one weekend in the 2010 election (as I also did for Brooks Newmark in 2001 in Braintree coincidentally). On a personal level I found both pleasant to deal with, certainly I have encountered worse politicians in my time on a personal level0
-
I had some great nights & big wins at the 'stow - v sad when that went - but also at Wembley when they had a dog track there.... Henlow is perhaps the jaywick of dog tracks compared to those whilst the 'don is no longer what it once was...Peter_the_Punter said:
Sorry Charles, I meant horseracing, and the track I had in mind was Hurst Park (though strictly it is in Surrey.)Charles said:
Walthamstow Dogs?Peter_the_Punter said:
Correct, Sir! That's ten points to you, and for a bonus twenty, name the other London track closed since WW2.Charles said:
Alexandra Palace surely?Peter_the_Punter said:@AllyPally
Martinez was one of my long-range long odds punts many moons ago, but I've heard little of her since and had assumed she is not in the running.
The other name I don't know, but since I seem to have backed 75% of the field already, I'll let this one pass.
Incidentally, I like the name. Does it commemorate the eponymous racetrack that once thrived in North London?
(No peeking at Wiki.)
The Greyhound Racing track at Walthamstow has, sadly, also been closed down. It was one of the best tracks in country right to the end.0 -
Sour grapes? After the hysteria at the Tory conference. Priceless!GIN1138 said:Moaning about the Primary and election funding looks like UKIP sour grapes.
0 -
Not really a racing man, to be honest. I love riding, of course, but would rather go out to Eastern Europe or Scandinavia and ride through the countrysidePeter_the_Punter said:
Oh if you're a racing man, Charles, you are a member of an elite, regardless of wealth or background.Charles said:
I know.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sorry Charles, I meant horseracing, and the track I had in mind was Hurst Park (though strictly it is in Surrey.)Charles said:
Walthamstow Dogs?Peter_the_Punter said:
Correct, Sir! That's ten points to you, and for a bonus twenty, name the other London track closed since WW2.Charles said:
Alexandra Palace surely?Peter_the_Punter said:@AllyPally
Martinez was one of my long-range long odds punts many moons ago, but I've heard little of her since and had assumed she is not in the running.
The other name I don't know, but since I seem to have backed 75% of the field already, I'll let this one pass.
Incidentally, I like the name. Does it commemorate the eponymous racetrack that once thrived in North London?
(No peeking at Wiki.)
The Greyhound Racing track at Walthamstow has, sadly, also been closed down. It was one of the best tracks in country right to the end.
Just wanted to demonstrated to @isam that I'm a man of the people, I am
;-)
It is one of life's little ironies that whilst racing, and betting, condemn many to poverty, it helped my family to escape it. My Dad was well-known for decades as one of the shrewdest punters at Clapton dogs, so despite being working-class in every normal respect we were very comfortably off throughout my entire upbringing.
I'm not in his class, but I like to think I am carrying on a family tradition when I'm betting, here and of course at the racetrack.
My grandfather's game was bridge - he got thrown out of Christchurch for too much time spent at the table. top tip for the future: never take £1,000 (1920s money) off the Dean of College the night before he is chairing the panel that is deciding whether to send you down...
0
