politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage in trouble in Thanet S while Clegg could be struggli
Comments
-
Even today's batch has the Tories down by 7.5% on average from 2010 and Labour up by 3%, so not very different from the average of all 114. And with 114 polls most of them taken this year, a few outliers are not capable to corrupt the result.Eastwinger said:
The VI has moved considerably since some of the earlier polls.Speedy said:I finished the analysis of the new constituency polls and added them into the lot with the others.
We now have polls in 114 constituencies, 62 CON seats, 37 LD, 14 LAB and 1 GRN seat.
Out of those the CON are losing 40 and gain 9, LAB gains 48, LD lose 17, UKIP gain 3 and GRN lose 1.
The percentage change of votes in all constituency polls since 2010 (my favourite gauge) is CON-8.5, LAB+4, LD-13, UKIP+15.5 for a swing of just over 6% to Labour.
In seats where swings actually matter:
CON seats swings:
To LAB 5.5 (same as comres poll yesterday), to UKIP 12.
LAB seats swings:
From CON 6.5, to UKIP 7.5
LD seats swings:
To CON 3.5, to LAB 10.5, to UKIP 14
Irony alert, UKIP are registering a greater rise in Labour seats (18.5%) than in Tory seats(16%), but because Labour are up since 2010 the swing is much smaller. In my opinion UKIP have done a strategic mistake of targeting Labour voters instead of Tory voters, I think fate had a hand on this one as UKIP had faced only westminter by-elections in safe Labour seats until recently, so they had to tailor their policies to the average Labour voter at the expence of Tory voters.0 -
@Peter_The_Punter check your inbox, I've clarified the bet now. I think I misunderestimated the english language and logic in my original formulation.0
-
I understand that the reallocation hurts the UKIP score, but what I am saying is that each table shows an increase in UKIP score from Jul-Nov.Speedy said:
Without the reallocation by past vote of undeciders and refusers the result is UKIP 36, CON 33, LAB 26. Is that ok now?isam said:
Yes but wasn't that the case in Ashcroft's July poll as well?Speedy said:
The undeciders and the refusers are reallocated on their 2010 vote, so it favours the Tories and Labourisam said:Any idea how UKIP went up or stayed put in every table in South Thanet compared to last Ashcroft poll but down 4 in the headline figure?
UKIP improved from July to Nov in the tables, but went down in the headline. If the methodology was the same, that shouldn't happen should it?
Both Jul & Nov tables were then reallocated, and the result was 33 in Jul and 29 in Nov
0 -
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 38s39 seconds ago
BREAKING Mitchell has lost. Judge satisfied he did say 'Pleb'
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More0 -
#Plebgate - Judge says on balance of probability Mitchell did say words attributed to him...0
-
@ChrisMasonBBC: Former Government chief whip Andrew Mitchell has lost his High Court libel
action over the "Plebgate" incident.0 -
Interesting - one person's word against the other - judge sides with the copper.dr_spyn said:Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 38s39 seconds ago
BREAKING Mitchell has lost. Judge satisfied he did say 'Pleb'
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More
Hope he appeals.0 -
0
-
That will make a nice safe seat for some lucky SPAD.0
-
There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it wasPeter_the_Punter said:
It is going to be a very tricky one for him to deal with in a TV debate, if there is one, and especially of Farage is included.TOPPING said:on topic:
for the Cons to have made a pledge and to have failed so fantastically worries me greatly.
Forget about whether immigrants do or don't contribute positively to the host nation (they do, slightly, but at the expense, surprise surprise, of those they displace in the workforce).
Cam said that it would come down, not only did it not come down but the rise should greatly concern people that it is "out of control". Well if the govt wants to reduce it and it rises then it is transparently out of control.
I am worried about what reaction this might inspire in other parties or in the voters.
I want immigration to slow down. I do not want a knee-jerk, soundbite policy from any party to slow it down.0 -
I'll look at that tonight.isam said:
I understand that the reallocation hurts the UKIP score, but what I am saying is that each table shows an increase in UKIP score from Jul-Nov.Speedy said:
Without the reallocation by past vote of undeciders and refusers the result is UKIP 36, CON 33, LAB 26. Is that ok now?isam said:
Yes but wasn't that the case in Ashcroft's July poll as well?Speedy said:
The undeciders and the refusers are reallocated on their 2010 vote, so it favours the Tories and Labourisam said:Any idea how UKIP went up or stayed put in every table in South Thanet compared to last Ashcroft poll but down 4 in the headline figure?
UKIP improved from July to Nov in the tables, but went down in the headline. If the methodology was the same, that shouldn't happen should it?
Both Jul & Nov tables were then reallocated, and the result was 33 in Jul and 29 in Nov0 -
Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.isam said:There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was
0 -
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them
I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".0 -
0
-
TaSpeedy said:
I'll look at that tonight.isam said:
I understand that the reallocation hurts the UKIP score, but what I am saying is that each table shows an increase in UKIP score from Jul-Nov.Speedy said:
Without the reallocation by past vote of undeciders and refusers the result is UKIP 36, CON 33, LAB 26. Is that ok now?isam said:
Yes but wasn't that the case in Ashcroft's July poll as well?Speedy said:
The undeciders and the refusers are reallocated on their 2010 vote, so it favours the Tories and Labourisam said:Any idea how UKIP went up or stayed put in every table in South Thanet compared to last Ashcroft poll but down 4 in the headline figure?
UKIP improved from July to Nov in the tables, but went down in the headline. If the methodology was the same, that shouldn't happen should it?
Both Jul & Nov tables were then reallocated, and the result was 33 in Jul and 29 in Nov0 -
Sorry?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.isam said:There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was
0 -
I have come to the conclusion that I live in a parallel universe. In the UK I live in, it is extremely hard for non-EU people to get visas to come to this country and it has been since before 2010; while benefits are not handed out like confetti.
A bloke at our work whose girlfriend is Australian is now in his fifth month of misery after she was forced to leave the country to go back to Oz to apply for a visa to come and live here with him. Meanwhile, my son, who left university in the summer and has been out of work since (now got a job, thankfully) was denied all benefits of any kind because his girlfriend, with whom he lives, was working more than a certain number of hours a week.
It's all anecdote. But I can't help feeling that there is a magic hole through which you can pass that opens up a range of state-fed delights that people I know have not been able to find; or that, actually, things are a lot more complicated than some posters on here and many newspapers let on.0 -
Wow just wow.Speedy said:Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them
I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".
0 -
Must say, I don't have confidence in that finding.0
-
O/T
Sky news
"The judge deciding whether former chief whip Andrew Mitchell called a policeman a "pleb" has said he does not think the officer would have made it up."
Don't know either way I really dont. Having not heard all the evidence etc.
however in saying that given that plod was reported to have made up witnesses that wern't even there and accounts submitted as evidence that apparently did not actully take place this is quite an interesting statement from M'lud.
0 -
By the way, QT tonight from Romford, interesting to see how Kipper inclined the audience is. NO UKIP rep on though0
-
Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.
Money for old rope for lawyers.0 -
Neither do I.Morris_Dancer said:Must say, I don't have confidence in that finding.
0 -
There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
0 -
@pulpstar @peter_the_punter
Yeah i'm fine with that bet. I'll email PtP. I hope, for peter's sanity that there is no dispute
Outcomes:
Clegg HOLD Hallam & Lib Dem Hold Solihull +£25 to PONG
Clegg LOSES Hallam & Lib Dem Lose Solihull +£25 to PULPSTAR
CLegg Hold Hallam, Lib Dem Lose Solihull = £0 wash
Clegg Lose Hallam, Lib Dem Hold Solihull = £0 wash0 -
I think the reason Mitchell lost was that there was no evidence he did not say what was alleged that he said.TGOHF said:
Wow just wow.Speedy said:Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them
I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".
Since there was no concrete evidence either side, the judge went with the policeman's testimony, in my opinion.0 -
The lawyers win either way, but it is strange that Andrew Mitchell took the risk of litigation. A big mistake (as it usually is).Pulpstar said:Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.
Money for old rope for lawyers.0 -
Stinks to high heaven.Speedy said:
I think the reason Mitchell lost was that there was no evidence he did not say what was alleged that he said.TGOHF said:
Wow just wow.Speedy said:Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them
I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".
Since there was no concrete evidence either side, the judge went with the policeman's testimony, in my opinion.0 -
by-election?0
-
Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.0 -
Telling the voters you are going to reducing immigration and then not doing of course is much harder...Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.isam said:There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was
0 -
He seems like a decent old fashioned bloke this lying copper who made stuff up.Speedy said:
I think the reason Mitchell lost was that there was no evidence he did not say what was alleged that he said.TGOHF said:
Wow just wow.Speedy said:Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
BROKEN: Andrew Mitchell loses #plebgate trial as judge rules he "did speak the words alleged" or something close to them
I don't believe that Mitchell said that so I'll go for "something close to them".
Since there was no concrete evidence either side, the judge went with the policeman's testimony, in my opinion.
Yes I'm now convinced..0 -
Thanks, Pulpstar, it's in.Pulpstar said:@Peter_The_Punter check your inbox, I've clarified the bet now. I think I misunderestimated the english language and logic in my original formulation.
I have forwarded it to the Professor of Philology at the University of Confusion for decoding, and will let you have the results in due course.
0 -
Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?0
-
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge0 -
Shush.Richard_Nabavi said:
The lawyers win either way, but it is strange that Andrew Mitchell took the risk of litigation. A big mistake (as it usually is).Pulpstar said:Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.
Money for old rope for lawyers.0 -
The reality is that some categories are very easy and others are not. I have no idea how skilled your colleague's girlfriend is, but it seems absurd that it's easier to come if you have no skills whatsoever from the subcontinent but are part of an arranged marriage, than it does if you've just graduated from the University of Sydney with a PhD in Economics.SouthamObserver said:I have come to the conclusion that I live in a parallel universe. In the UK I live in, it is extremely hard for non-EU people to get visas to come to this country and it has been since before 2010; while benefits are not handed out like confetti.
A bloke at our work whose girlfriend is Australian is now in his fifth month of misery after she was forced to leave the country to go back to Oz to apply for a visa to come and live here with him. Meanwhile, my son, who left university in the summer and has been out of work since (now got a job, thankfully) was denied all benefits of any kind because his girlfriend, with whom he lives, was working more than a certain number of hours a week.
It's all anecdote. But I can't help feeling that there is a magic hole through which you can pass that opens up a range of state-fed delights that people I know have not been able to find; or that, actually, things are a lot more complicated than some posters on here and many newspapers let on.0 -
The laughing matter was that Pritchard started saying how much we needed immigration when asked why the government failed to reduce it.Indigo said:
Telling the voters you are going to reducing immigration and then not doing of course is much harder...Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, carping from the sidelines is always easy.isam said:There was a debate on it on todays Daily Politics and Farage slaughtered Mark Pritchard, with Andrew Neil almost giggling at how easy it was
So Neil just said "Why pledge to reduce it then?"0 -
I was thinking that. We need apologies for demanding apologies.Theuniondivvie said:Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?
0 -
Not at all true.isam said:
"Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010"Bond_James_Bond said:
There are kippers all over the web announcing they're going to win 40 seats in 2015 so I suggest that actually rather a lot of have people have pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.Socrates said:
On what basis is a 14 point swing towards you "in trouble"? If Farage wins South Thanet it will be a huge achievement. I think he'll do it, but no-one has ever pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.MikeSmithson said:
Exactly the same weighting adjustment was made in Lord A's Rochester poll and still it overstated UKIP by 5%.isam said:UKIP in the lead in Thanet South until weighting by 2010 vote is applied
Farage wasn't the candidate then, and UKIP got 3% of the vote Nationally in 2010. If you think that is of no significance/that he might be a drag on the UKIP vote rather than a boost for it then I guess you could back the Tories
Dream on. You are in trouble.
I am reminded of Napoleon's snark at his marshals on the morning of Waterloo: "Because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you consider him a great general. Well I am telling you he is a bad general, the English are a bad army, and the whole affair will be like eating breakfast."
As Farage has demonstrated 5 times already, winning Westminster seats is much harder than eating breakfast.
Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010.
Ha!
He soared far above the other candidates0 -
He lost because he could not prove that the police officer was lying.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.0 -
Agree entirely, but doesn't libel work on different and lower parameters? Perhaps One of our regular posting lawyers might enlighten ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.0 -
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
0 -
Alex Massie: So, the judge in #plebgate libel action decides plebs do not have 'the wit, imagination or inclination' to make stuff up. Sorted.0
-
Yet PC Richardson claimed in numerous press reports that he didn't hear the exchange.Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
0 -
He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.Indigo said:
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge0 -
Sky talking of £1m legal bill for Mitchell...0
-
Don't worry, people will continue to engage in stupid litigation, as they have for centuries!antifrank said:
Shush.Richard_Nabavi said:
The lawyers win either way, but it is strange that Andrew Mitchell took the risk of litigation. A big mistake (as it usually is).Pulpstar said:Fucking hell our libel system must be the most broken in the world.
Money for old rope for lawyers.0 -
Have they gone backwards on non-EU? I thought the issue was a big rise in EU immigration?Socrates said:
Theresa May has repeated the pledge herself. And even if she didn't agree with it, you have to be pretty damn useless to try to achieve major reductions in immigration and actually go backwards.edmundintokyo said:
That was Cameron's pledge, not May's. He got to be PM by telling the voters what they wanted to hear and May got lumbered with the blame when they couldn't deliver it. Cameron may be full of shit, but neither of them is thick.Socrates said:
The "fact" that the vast majority of UKIP supporters are thick and obsessed with Muslims? Apparently you're too thick to be able to know what a fact is.TheScreamingEagles said:
Pointing out the facts isn't an insult.Socrates said:
You spend more time insulting Kippers than any Kipper poster on here does insulting Tories. And then you're surprised when other posters don't defend you.TheScreamingEagles said:
Considering the insults you Kippers throw around without foundation....Socrates said:
Keep insulting the people you need to win back for a majority. It's pretty clear the Tories are the thick ones if that's their strategy.TheScreamingEagles said:
If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.TGOHF said:Mosque-go ?
KentOnline @Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
#Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8
Stick to blaming Theresa May for prison escapes
And Theresa May is so thick, she pledges to reduce immigration by 60% and ends up increasing it.
If so, isn't the answer:
- We've done a good job on reducing non-EU immigration
- Because of the strong performance of the economy, we are a very attractive country for EU immigrants, vote of confidence, etc
- We can't do anything about this because of the agreements signed by the last Labour government (can you hang tenuously on Lisbon)?
- But we are working on our planned renegotiation, which we will put to a vote0 -
I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:Indigo said:
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U0 -
This is Mitchell vs The Sun isn't it...
“For the reasons given I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb.”
Isn't that a maHOOssive judgement call by the judge ?
Is he deciding on Rowland vs Mitchell too ?
0 -
We're talking about stopping people bringing family over to make a serious dent in low-skilled foreign immigration, which would involve leaving both the EU and the ECHR. The Tories don't have a parliamentary majority to do this. In any case if UKIP people are to believed these things would make the UK a prosperous and wonderful place, which would result in British people living overseas moving back and result in net immigration.Socrates said:
A government with a majority in parliament is quite able to change the law as necessary. The vast majority of immigrants, EU and non-EU are not educated to university level. We could easily reduce how many of them are coming here without "serious economic damage".0 -
There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.0 -
Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?0
-
While we're thinking about Cameron going backwards on his pledge on immigration, it's also worth out his big cap on the EU budget was destroyed today:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540523/Britain-pay-34bn-to-fill-EU-Black-Hole0 -
Is Barry Dennis on the panel?isam said:By the way, QT tonight from Romford, interesting to see how Kipper inclined the audience is. NO UKIP rep on though
Not watching if he isn't.
0 -
Ha he didn't manage that... & he wasn't the leader!Charles said:
Not at all true.isam said:
"Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010"Bond_James_Bond said:
There are kippers all over the web announcing they're going to win 40 seats in 2015 so I suggest that actually rather a lot of have people have pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.Socrates said:
On what basis is a 14 point swing towards you "in trouble"? If Farage wins South Thanet it will be a huge achievement. I think he'll do it, but no-one has ever pretended it's anything but a huge uphill struggle.MikeSmithson said:
Exactly the same weighting adjustment was made in Lord A's Rochester poll and still it overstated UKIP by 5%.isam said:UKIP in the lead in Thanet South until weighting by 2010 vote is applied
Farage wasn't the candidate then, and UKIP got 3% of the vote Nationally in 2010. If you think that is of no significance/that he might be a drag on the UKIP vote rather than a boost for it then I guess you could back the Tories
Dream on. You are in trouble.
I am reminded of Napoleon's snark at his marshals on the morning of Waterloo: "Because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you consider him a great general. Well I am telling you he is a bad general, the English are a bad army, and the whole affair will be like eating breakfast."
As Farage has demonstrated 5 times already, winning Westminster seats is much harder than eating breakfast.
Farage's presumed leader bonus didn't play out in Buckingham in 2010.
Ha!
He soared far above the other candidates0 -
If I heard correctly, the Judge also liked the officer who was sacked for gross misconduct.TGOHF said:He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.
@DanHannanMEP: Two lessons to draw from the #plebgate case.
1. Never get involved in a libel action.
2. Seriously, NEVER get involved in a libel action.0 -
Please, spare us......!!!!!Pong said:Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?
0 -
It was nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it was a civil case not a criminal one. Mitchell brought the action so it was up to him to show that his version of events was the correct one. He could not. That's the way it works.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
0 -
You misunderstand - if the child negociates a pay rise to £8 from the paper round he now gets £11. So an extra quid to spend on "social justice".MikeL said:There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.0 -
There's just over a million British expats living abroad. Even if half of them moved back in one year, that is lower than one year's gross immigration. It would be, at most, a temporary effect.edmundintokyo said:
We're talking about stopping people bringing family over to make a serious dent in low-skilled foreign immigration, which would involve leaving both the EU and the ECHR. The Tories don't have a parliamentary majority to do this. In any case if UKIP people are to believed these things would make the UK a prosperous and wonderful place, which would result in British people living overseas moving back and result in net immigration.Socrates said:
A government with a majority in parliament is quite able to change the law as necessary. The vast majority of immigrants, EU and non-EU are not educated to university level. We could easily reduce how many of them are coming here without "serious economic damage".
Oh, and cutting low skilled EU immigration would have a big dent without changing family migration. Plus, most non-EU immigrants in the UK are low skilled, so it must be more than family migration there too.0 -
-
Or, if you do, make sure you are insured. That's what I did when it happened to me.Scott_P said:
If I heard correctly, the Judge also liked the officer who was sacked for gross misconduct.TGOHF said:He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.
@DanHannanMEP: Two lessons to draw from the #plebgate case.
1. Never get involved in a libel action.
2. Seriously, NEVER get involved in a libel action.
0 -
This risks turning into a Melchett 'he poohpoohed my poohpooh' thread...SouthamObserver said:
I was thinking that. We need apologies for demanding apologies.Theuniondivvie said:Are there going to be loads of posts demanding apologies from posters who'd demanded apologies from those who had decided Mitchell was guilty, or will everyone wait to see if there's an appeal?
0 -
His case was blown before he started it really was. He was never going to win this one.
Guido
"Mr Justice Warby said evidence from Mitchell’s chums; Lord Coe, Sir Richard Ottaway MP and others expressing doubt Mr Mitchell would ever use the word ’pleb’, would be permitted. Submissions about Metropolitan Police officers creating fake witnesses were refused"
Never quite understood how such important evidence of potential false evidence was not allowed as a defence yet Plod could still use and report on all the hearsay incidents that were said to have occured previously to this incident in question?0 -
"We have heard, for example, from Mr Bex Bissell - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler. You may choose, if you wish, to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, greedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you."Speedy said:
I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:Indigo said:
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U0 -
Andrew Mitchell was worth around £2 million in 20120
-
It's fine peter, you love compliated betsPeter_the_Punter said:
Please, spare us......!!!!!Pong said:Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?
Ok, Pulpy;
Basically, you think the tories majority in solihull will be larger than Cleggs in Sheffield.
I think Cleggs majority in Sheffield will be larger than the tories majority in Solihull
Therefore, we take the tory majority % in solihull (which may be negative if the LD's win) and take away the LD majority % in Sheffield (again, this would be negative if clegg loses).
The result will either be positive or negative.
The more positive the result, the more I pay you.
The more negative, the more you pay me.
We can agree a stake and a max exposure.
Interested?0 -
He has the money:RodCrosby said:Sky talking of £1m legal bill for Mitchell...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9172731/Andrew-Mitchell-held-shares-in-company-which-avoided-millions-in-stamp-duty.html
God's revenge?0 -
For God's sake, it's got a huge picture of Jesus over the front door. If that's not a clue that it's not a mosque, I don't know what is.Peter_the_Punter said:
OK, Socco, point taken.Socrates said:
I'm not sure you can easily tell the entrance labels from the backshot of a news report. The reality is that, unlike most British cathedrals, it's built in the Byzantine style, and Islamic architecture followed the Byzantine style from the Dome of the Rock onwards.Peter_the_Punter said:
I used to work opposite, Socco. It's one of London's hidden treasures.Socrates said:
I'd like to see a poll asking people to identify what type of religious building Westminster cathedral is from just a picture. I know the building as I lived near there, but it does look more like a mosque than a cathedral.Peter_the_Punter said:
It's an easy mistake to make, TSE.TheScreamingEagles said:
If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.TGOHF said:Mosque-go ?
KentOnline @Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
#Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8
I've often trotted round for a quick confession only to find myself kneeling before a puzzled-looking Imam.
Nevertheless I think anybody who mistakes it for a mosque needs a trip to Specsavers. The absence of a separate entrance for Ladies is a bit of a giveaway.
I can in fact see the similarities. I still think the culprit deserves his or her place in the Twitter For Dummies class, next to Ms Thornbury.
I used to live next door to it too.
0 -
That judge has been involved in some interesting decisions beforeTGOHF said:
He liked the cut of the chap who claims not to have heard the exchange more.Indigo said:
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/373420/The-judge-who-backed-Abu-Qatada0 -
Steady, Moses. Can you imagine what they would charge Mike for that?Moses_ said:
Agree entirely, but doesn't libel work on different and lower parameters? Perhaps One of our regular posting lawyers might enlighten ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.0 -
£2 a point for charity :O)Pong said:
It's fine peter, you love compliated betsPeter_the_Punter said:
Please, spare us......!!!!!Pong said:Pulpy, do you want to do a fun low stakes, limited exposure spread bet too?
Ok, Pulpy;
Basically, you think the tories majority in solihull will be larger than Cleggs in Sheffield.
I think Cleggs majority in Sheffield will be larger than the tories majority in Solihull
Therefore, we take the tory majority % in solihull (which may be negative if the LD's win) and take away the LD majority % in Sheffield (again, this would be negative if clegg loses).
The result will either be positive or negative.
The more positive the result, the more I pay you.
The more negative, the more you pay me.
We can agree a stake and a max exposure.
Interested?0 -
'self confessed player of the pink oboe' surely? When did this 'chicken strangler' PC version come along? Sheesh.dr_spyn said:
"We have heard, for example, from Mr Bex Bissell - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler. You may choose, if you wish, to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, greedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you."Speedy said:
I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:Indigo said:
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U0 -
Socrates here's my evidence.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats
The polling on the kippers misjudging Asians/Muslims I've previously linked for you and is on the YouGov website.
Plus when I posted the Cathderal story one of your fellow travellers in UKIP said something along the lines of under LibLabCon it was inevitable that Westminster Cathedral would soon be a mosque.0 -
Citation needed.Socrates said:There's just over a million British expats living abroad.
0 -
John Hemmings MP has posted on this site in the past (I got into a barney with him regarding Alchemy/Phoenix/Rover)Artist said:Not too many surprises in the Con-LD battleground. Two observations:
-John Hemmings has the mother of all incumbency boosts.
-Conservatives unchanged in Watford since last poll, the LD selection has tore into Labour share.0 -
"Then we have been forced to listen to the pitiful whining of Mr Norma St.John Scott - a scrounger, parasite, pervert, a worm, a self-confessed player of the pink oboe; a man (or woman) who by his (or her) own admission chews pillows! It would be hard to imagine, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a more discredited and embittered man, a more unreliable witness upon whose testimony to convict a man who you may rightly think should have become Prime Minister of his country or President of the world. You may on the other hand choose to believe the evidence of Mrs Scott - in which case I can only say that you need psychiatric help of the type provided by the excellent Dr Gleadle."Patrick said:
'self confessed player of the pink oboe' surely? When did this 'chicken strangler' PC version come along? Sheesh.dr_spyn said:
"We have heard, for example, from Mr Bex Bissell - a man who by his own admission is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile and a self-confessed chicken strangler. You may choose, if you wish, to believe the transparent tissue of odious lies which streamed on and on from his disgusting, greedy, slavering lips. That is entirely a matter for you."Speedy said:
I haven't posted this since the Nigel Evans trial, you lose some you win some:Indigo said:
So basically the judge like the cut of one man's jib more than the other ?Speedy said:
The key in how we reached this verdict:Richard_Nabavi said:There is (as ever) a very good Guardian live blog on Plebgate, which lays out the judge's reasoning quite clearly:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/27/scotland-should-control-income-tax-says-smith-commission-reaction-politics-live-blog
Sean O'Neill ✔ @TimesCrime
Follow
PC Ian Richardson (who spoke to @thetimes in Feb) praised as objective, sensible and impressive by judge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
Plebgate the latest Whitehall Farce.
0 -
Anyone stupid enough to sue for libel when he himself was his only witness.. seems to lack a certain ability to make a judgement of the evident risk of failure..
Given that Mitchell appears to be a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person judging by the evidence presented by other politicians , he also appears to be suffering from a deluded sense of his own credibility.0 -
The best thing about plebgate on PB were the posters who said Dave would never fire a chum then swiftly changed direction to say Dave sat on evidence that would have cleared Mitchell0
-
Ha!Peter_the_Punter said:
Steady, Moses. Can you imagine what they would charge Mike for that?Moses_ said:
Agree entirely, but doesn't libel work on different and lower parameters? Perhaps One of our regular posting lawyers might enlighten ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Speedy, Mitchell lost because he could not prove his innocence?
And here was I thinking guilt was the thing that had to be proved [not a go at you, incidentally, but the judge].
If there's no concrete evidence and that's ok then we might as well employ witchsmellers.
I meant is there a lower level of proof required in a civil case to the " beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case
*throws spade away*0 -
Closer to 5 million http://britishexpats.com/news/latest-news/expats-world-hands/edmundintokyo said:
Citation needed.Socrates said:There's just over a million British expats living abroad.
0 -
-
http://britishexpats.com/articles/moving-abroad/more-than-1-million-british-expats-living-abroad/edmundintokyo said:
Citation needed.Socrates said:There's just over a million British expats living abroad.
0 -
They should have used the judge from the Nigel Evans trial.Moses_ said:His case was blown before he started it really was. He was never going to win this one.
Guido
"Mr Justice Warby said evidence from Mitchell’s chums; Lord Coe, Sir Richard Ottaway MP and others expressing doubt Mr Mitchell would ever use the word ’pleb’, would be permitted. Submissions about Metropolitan Police officers creating fake witnesses were refused"
Never quite understood how such important evidence of potential false evidence was not allowed as a defence yet Plod could still use and report on all the hearsay incidents that were said to have occured previously to this incident in question?
This whole story is indicative of public belief vs trial outcomes, most people thought that Evans was going to lose his trial and then he won, and most people thought that Mitchell was going to win and then he lost, in both cases as in most cases the judge's beliefs about the case are paramount to the outcome.0 -
Is Rowland vs Mitchell still ongoing or is that decided by this case.madasafish said:Anyone stupid enough to sue for libel when he himself was his only witness.. seems to lack a certain ability to make a judgement of the evident risk of failure..
Given that Mitchell appears to be a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person judging by the evidence presented by other politicians , he also appears to be suffering from a deluded sense of his own credibility.0 -
Twitter and thought are mutually exclusive, IMO.Peter_the_Punter said:
My impression of The Twitterati, Watcher, is that there is not generally a lot of thought being processed.TheWatcher said:
It's easy enough to work out the thought processes in play here.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Should've gone to specsaversSocrates said:
A Byzantine campanile looks pretty similar to a minaret.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Nah, there aren't any minarets!Socrates said:
I'd like to see a poll asking people to identify what type of religious building Westminster cathedral is from just a picture. I know the building as I lived near there, but it does look more like a mosque than a cathedral.Peter_the_Punter said:
It's an easy mistake to make, TSE.TheScreamingEagles said:
If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.TGOHF said:Mosque-go ?
KentOnline @Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
#Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8
I've often trotted round for a quick confession only to find myself kneeling before a puzzled-looking Imam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Cathedral
The building looks 'different', and it's in London. Ergo it's foreign. And it's got a tower. Red Alert. At this point the Muslim klaxon sounds in the Kipper mind, and rather than does some basic research, a lightbulb sparks into life above a sign marked 'Mosque'.
0 -
@Pong got there first, and I don't want too much exposure ^_~TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Don't get bogged down in the detail.Charles said:
Have they gone backwards on non-EU? I thought the issue was a big rise in EU immigration?Socrates said:
Theresa May has repeated the pledge herself. And even if she didn't agree with it, you have to be pretty damn useless to try to achieve major reductions in immigration and actually go backwards.edmundintokyo said:
That was Cameron's pledge, not May's. He got to be PM by telling the voters what they wanted to hear and May got lumbered with the blame when they couldn't deliver it. Cameron may be full of shit, but neither of them is thick.Socrates said:
The "fact" that the vast majority of UKIP supporters are thick and obsessed with Muslims? Apparently you're too thick to be able to know what a fact is.TheScreamingEagles said:
Pointing out the facts isn't an insult.Socrates said:
You spend more time insulting Kippers than any Kipper poster on here does insulting Tories. And then you're surprised when other posters don't defend you.TheScreamingEagles said:
Considering the insults you Kippers throw around without foundation....Socrates said:
Keep insulting the people you need to win back for a majority. It's pretty clear the Tories are the thick ones if that's their strategy.TheScreamingEagles said:
If all the thick Kippers obsessed with Islam/Muslims disappeared UKIP would be polling behind the loonies.TGOHF said:Mosque-go ?
KentOnline @Kent_Online 2h2 hours ago
#Ukip South Thanet member 'no longer on twitter' after mistaking cathedral for mosque: http://bit.ly/1rqz7X8
Stick to blaming Theresa May for prison escapes
And Theresa May is so thick, she pledges to reduce immigration by 60% and ends up increasing it.
If so, isn't the answer:
- We've done a good job on reducing non-EU immigration
- Because of the strong performance of the economy, we are a very attractive country for EU immigrants, vote of confidence, etc
- We can't do anything about this because of the agreements signed by the last Labour government (can you hang tenuously on Lisbon)?
- But we are working on our planned renegotiation, which we will put to a vote
They pledged to reduce immigration, immigration went up.
They need to come up with a coherent response.
That said, I would not be surprised to hear EdM next Weds lead on this and somehow simultaneously be outraged that the Cons haven't brought down immigration and delighted that immigration is so "healthy". He has form.0 -
Bah no one is willing to bet on Clegg not winning HallamPulpstar said:0 -
Mr. Moses, that sounds rotten.0
-
Tomorrow I will be at the 40th birthday party of a friend of mine. He is a true blue tory, with (he will happily admit) UKIP sympathies.tlg86 said:Not wanting to doubt the figures, but can someone explain why the constituency question makes such a difference? I get why a Labour voter would vote Lib Dem (though that is questionable!), but I don't get why someone saying they'd vote Tory in a standard question would then switch to the Lib Dems in a constituency question?
I might be being a bit thick here, but do these people understand that by voting Lib Dem instead of Tory they may prevent a Tory majority? Or do they love their local Lib Dem MP that much?
But he's in Southwark, and will be voting for Simon Hughes because:
1. He believes Simon Hughes is a sincere guy, who didn't bow to pressure on gay marriage.
2. He thinks he's been an excellent local MP who's been very responsive when they're been issues.
3. He would rather have a LibDem MP than a Labour one.0 -
If Clegg wins and the Tories don't win Solihull you have bragging rights about it for all eternity though :PTheScreamingEagles said:
BahPulpstar said:0 -
No, I do understand that thanks - I didn't want my post to be any longer!TGOHF said:
You misunderstand - if the child negociates a pay rise to £8 from the paper round he now gets £11. So an extra quid to spend on "social justice".MikeL said:There seems to be no reporting of exactly how the Scottish Income Tax is actually going to work in practice.
Per Newsnight: Approx 7% of Income Tax is raised in Scotland at the moment.
Scotland is approx 9% of UK population and gets approx 10% of public spending.
So at the moment Scotland effectively gets 10% of the Income Tax raised.
Under the new arrangements, Scotland sets its own Income Tax. If rates are unchanged it will only collect the amount equal to 7%.
So what about the other 3% (ie 30% of the money Scotland now gets)? Is Scotland giving this money up? Surely not? It will still get it via the Barnett formula.
Result: Nothing changes. Scotland still gets an amount equal to 10% of UK Income tax receipts.
It's like giving a child £10 pocket money. You then say "look after yourself - do a paper round." The child earns £7 delivering papers. You then still give the child £3 to top them up. So they still end up with a total of £10.
So Scotland isn't actually going to be raising all of its Income Tax at all.
I guess it's all far too complicated for the BBC or anyone to actually report it in a way anyone will understand. But it is a total farce. Either Scotland should collect its own tax or it shouldn't.
I assume the £3 is effectively fixed - though is that actually the case? Does it remain exactly £3 forever? Or does it rise - eg with CPI or nominal GDP? And does it change if Scotland's population as a % of the UK changes?
But whatever those fine details, Scotland will not be raising all of its Income Tax. A very large chunk of England/Wales/NI Income Tax will still be being passed to Scotland.
And everyone should be aware of that. Yet there is no mention of it in any reports.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
