politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A CON gain from UKIP the highlight of this week’s local by-
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A CON gain from UKIP the highlight of this week’s local by-elections
Rothwell on Kettering
Result: Emboldened denotes elected
Conservatives: Jelley 771, Sumpter 853 E, Talbot 777 E
Labour: Harris 614, Jones 623, Mills 951 E
United Kingdom Independence Party: Hogston 370
Green Party: Heath 82, Jones 119, Reeves 89
No change from 2011
Comments
-
First to congratulate!0
-
The Wisbech South result was astonishing – but remains to be seen if it’s a blip or a trend.0
-
second ............... nearly
0 -
Wisbech was UKIP's equivalent of fighting a seat where the outgoing candidate was pimping his mentally ill wife over the Internet.0
-
I know nothing about Wisbech - can anyone throw light on it?0
-
UKIP will tread water at best until the autumn as the Tories bask in their victory, they may even go backwards as here, as we move into midterm and as EUref draws closer they will hope to start picking up momentum again, of course the SNP had a pretty bad election in 2010 and look what has happened to them since!0
-
Only visited it once as I had relatives living in the area, pretty town centre with lots of Georgian architecture but rather tatty in places and dominated by the dog food factory as I recall. Also somewhat isolated and extremely flat rurally – nearly bought a house in the Crescent but that was nearly 20 years ago.Plato said:I know nothing about Wisbech - can anyone throw light on it?
http://www.whitingandpartners.co.uk/Pages/ImageManager/Locations/welch.jpg
0 -
EXCLUSIVE: Son of disgraced soccer boss Jack Warner admits he scalped World Cup tickets for 'substantial profit' in multi-million dollar scam
Daryan Warner, whose father is wanted by US authorities for trial over massive corruption, plead guilty in October 2012 to scam
He admitted buying up tickets for 2006 and 2010 World Cups in Germany and South Africa and selling them for 'substantial profit'
Court papers were kept secret until now and Daryan and his brother Darryl, who also plead guilty to a mortgage scam still face jail
Both men are understood to have helped FBI build case against his father and other senior soccer officials from governing body FIFA
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112655/Son-disgraced-soccer-boss-Jack-Warner-admits-scalped-World-Cup-tickets-substantial-profit-multi-million-dollar-scam.html#ixzz3cD7wZwYr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
It might be new to the Daily Mail but I commented on Jack Warner being shopped by his sons on PB several days ago - I feel so used :-(Plato said:EXCLUSIVE: Son of disgraced soccer boss Jack Warner admits he scalped World Cup tickets for 'substantial profit' in multi-million dollar scam
Daryan Warner, whose father is wanted by US authorities for trial over massive corruption, plead guilty in October 2012 to scam
He admitted buying up tickets for 2006 and 2010 World Cups in Germany and South Africa and selling them for 'substantial profit'
Court papers were kept secret until now and Daryan and his brother Darryl, who also plead guilty to a mortgage scam still face jail
Both men are understood to have helped FBI build case against his father and other senior soccer officials from governing body FIFA
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112655/Son-disgraced-soccer-boss-Jack-Warner-admits-scalped-World-Cup-tickets-substantial-profit-multi-million-dollar-scam.html#ixzz3cD7wZwYr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
Local knowledge?Sean_F said:Wisbech was UKIP's equivalent of fighting a seat where the outgoing candidate was pimping his mentally ill wife over the Internet.
Fen Folk can be a little "interesting"!
0 -
They had a warren of rabbits living on a roundabout in the middle of town. Locals used to leave salad leftovers to feed them. Honest.foxinsoxuk said:
Local knowledge?Sean_F said:Wisbech was UKIP's equivalent of fighting a seat where the outgoing candidate was pimping his mentally ill wife over the Internet.
Fen Folk can be a little "interesting"!
Myxomatosis took care of it however.0 -
Wisbech used to be on the coast/estuary a few centuries ago. Now it's about 30 miles from the coast.0
-
Despite being many, many miles from the sea, it is actually a port town, with ships come along the Nene from the Wash.SimonStClare said:
Only visited it once as I had relatives living in the area, pretty town centre with lots of Georgian architecture but rather tatty in places and dominated by the dog food factory as I recall. Also somewhat isolated and extremely flat rurally – nearly bought a house in the Crescent but that was nearly 20 years ago.Plato said:I know nothing about Wisbech - can anyone throw light on it?
http://www.whitingandpartners.co.uk/Pages/ImageManager/Locations/welch.jpg
As an aside, many moons ago myself and my ex-gf went further downriver to Sutton Bridge to see a ship that had split into three parts when they had tried to turn it on an ebb tide - the bow and stern stuck in the mud, and as the water dropped, it broke into three.
Major chaos ensued.
Edit: report here, including pictures:
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c712de5274a429000010f/lagik.pdf0 -
@JJ – cheers for the V interesting link - I did have some vague knowledge of its maritime past at the time of visiting but all I remember is a ruddy great river that cut through the town. – Also getting lost somewhere in the sticks and following dykes on roads with 90% bends. Twas an interesting visit..!0
-
The outgoing councillor was guilty of a huge benefit fraud.foxinsoxuk said:
Local knowledge?Sean_F said:Wisbech was UKIP's equivalent of fighting a seat where the outgoing candidate was pimping his mentally ill wife over the Internet.
Fen Folk can be a little "interesting"!0 -
Kipper candidate selection can be a bit poor at times. They do need to tighten up on their vetting if they want to be a serious party.Sean_F said:
The outgoing councillor was guilty of a huge benefit fraud.foxinsoxuk said:
Local knowledge?Sean_F said:Wisbech was UKIP's equivalent of fighting a seat where the outgoing candidate was pimping his mentally ill wife over the Internet.
Fen Folk can be a little "interesting"!0 -
Some of those roads can be quite deadly, especially the ones that have an adverse camber towards the dykes. Hit some ice and you skid off into the water.SimonStClare said:@JJ – cheers for the V interesting link - I did have some vague knowledge of its maritime past at the time of visiting but all I remember is a ruddy great river that cut through the town. – Also getting lost somewhere in the sticks and following dykes on roads with 90% bends. Twas an interesting visit..!
I think one between Peterborough and Dog-in-a-Doublet on the Nene is particularly bad.
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/travel/latest-travel-news/speed-limit-reduced-on-north-bank-in-whittlesey-following-crashes-1-5724271
Dog-in-a-Doublet has to be one of my favourite place names in the UK.0 -
UKIP are starting this parliament way higher in the polls than they did in 2010, so even 'treading water' represents a big step forward on a like-for-like basis. The 2016 locals should see good gains on the same basis (2012 was the last set of locals before UKIP made their breakthrough at that level). From there on, things will get a lot harder, though they will have the referendum issue at that point.HYUFD said:UKIP will tread water at best until the autumn as the Tories bask in their victory, they may even go backwards as here, as we move into midterm and as EUref draws closer they will hope to start picking up momentum again, of course the SNP had a pretty bad election in 2010 and look what has happened to them since!
0 -
The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
0 -
DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote0
-
Nah. Peak Kipper.HYUFD said:DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
They had their chance and blew it.0 -
The way that the Act is framed doesn't make any indication that the statements cannot be with regard to the candidate themselves as opposed to only applying to other candidates. I do fancy their chances.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In0
-
The Kippers benefit most from a 2:1 victory for "In". This would result in LD/Lab/Con all backing the continued membership of the EU.HYUFD said:DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
A narrow win for "In" on the other hand could potentially flip the Tories to also being a party of "Out", which would not be good for UKIP.
A win for "Out" would be a triumph as far as UKIP achieving its goals. But it would almost certainly destroy the party as an electoral force.0 -
Scots Nats: I will offer 4-1 on a by-election in O&S caused by Mr Carmichael being forced from his seat.
0 -
I wouldn't be so sure.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
There appear to be three grounds for the defence.
1. That the facts are untrue. This seems quite unlikely, he's already admitted what happened and it's well established.
2. That the lie about knowledge does not attempt to affect a reasonable person's view of the personal character of Alistair Carmichael. The defence can try this, I think it would be quite a weak defence.
3. That the Act is not framed in a way that the character of the accused candidate themselves can be grounds for an offence under the Act. That will likely be the core of the defence, from the wording it is unclear (which would normally mean that it would include Carmichael), so they will be relying on persuading the judge that it was not the intention of the Act to apply to the individual themselves. This is not a completely reliable defense.
However it turns out, I am sure it will be a lot of fun. Unless your name is Alistair Carmichael or you are a Liberal Democrat hoping to resurrect a dead party.0 -
I'm not a LibDem.Dair said:
I wouldn't be so sure.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
There appear to be three grounds for the defence.
1. That the facts are untrue. This seems quite unlikely, he's already admitted what happened and it's well established.
2. That the lie about knowledge does not attempt to affect a reasonable person's view of the personal character of Alistair Carmichael. The defence can try this, I think it would be quite a weak defence.
3. That the Act is not framed in a way that the candidate themselves can be guilty under the Act. That will likely be the core of the defence, from the wording it is unclear, so they will be relying on persuading the sheriff that it was not the intention of the Act to apply to the individual themselves. This is not a completely reliable defense.
However it turns out, I am sure it will be a lot of fun. Unless your name is Alistair Carmichael or you are a Liberal Democrat hoping to resurrect a dead party.
But come on: money where your mouth is.0 -
@Dair Have you had anything to say about your sexist ex-leader? A disgrace.
Put your own house in order before focusing on others.
0 -
rcs1000 A big In risks setting back UKIP, perhaps for good, an Out ends their reason for existence, a relatively narrow In means they can 'keep the flame alive' as the SNP did post indyref. If the Tories elect a rightwinger that risks handing the election to Labour, if they ignore UKIP they risk losing some Out voting Tories, the worst result for the Tories is a reasonably close In0
-
Tidal waters reach very far inland to Earith, along the New Duke of Bedford's drain. If Denver Lock on the Great Ouse near King's Lynn failed then there would be massive flooding downstream.Sean_F said:
If you look at old maps, the sea could sometimes flood almost as far as Cambridge. Ely was a proper island.AndyJS said:Wisbech used to be on the coast/estuary a few centuries ago. Now it's about 30 miles from the coast.
http://www.ousewashes.info/sluices/denver-sluice.htm
Whilst looking for information on the 1937 floods, I came across the following article in the Spectator by a certain Dorothy L. Sayers:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/2nd-april-1937/8/the-fen-floods-fiction-and-fact
And pictures of the 1947 floods:
https://ousewasheslps.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/2014-02-03.pdf
I've been fascinated by these rivers for years. Which is probably a little sad. ;-)0 -
If you hadn't squirmed out of putting your money where your mouth was on the bet I offered you on the size of the Yes vote, I might have considered this.rcs1000 said:
I'm not a LibDem.Dair said:
I wouldn't be so sure.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
There appear to be three grounds for the defence.
1. That the facts are untrue. This seems quite unlikely, he's already admitted what happened and it's well established.
2. That the lie about knowledge does not attempt to affect a reasonable person's view of the personal character of Alistair Carmichael. The defence can try this, I think it would be quite a weak defence.
3. That the Act is not framed in a way that the candidate themselves can be guilty under the Act. That will likely be the core of the defence, from the wording it is unclear, so they will be relying on persuading the sheriff that it was not the intention of the Act to apply to the individual themselves. This is not a completely reliable defense.
However it turns out, I am sure it will be a lot of fun. Unless your name is Alistair Carmichael or you are a Liberal Democrat hoping to resurrect a dead party.
But come on: money where your mouth is.0 -
As I understand it he used the exact words "behave yourself, man" in parliament in 2014.MikeSmithson said:@Dair Have you had anything to say about your sexist ex-leader? A disgrace.
Put your own house in order before focusing on others.
I do not automatically assume the use of the term "man" or "woman" to be sexist. That he's used the same term in relation to a man indicates it is not.
Perhaps the Libs and Labs displaying such levels of faux outrage should review the election campaign that has just been run and reflect on how faux outrage has worked for their respective parties.
I should again point out, I am not a member of the SNP.0 -
I have just received an invitation to the Labour leadership hustings in Ny'castle. I guess other PBers have received similar for their local meetings. Looks like it will include the candidates for deputy too, so could be a crowded platform.0
-
Calm down dearMikeSmithson said:@Dair Have you had anything to say about your sexist ex-leader? A disgrace.
Put your own house in order before focusing on others.
0 -
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
Salmond, the Berlusconi of Scotland0
-
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
there was a thoughtful piece on Charles Kennedy on the BBC's "Last Word" it was on R4 at 4.30 and will be available on Radio I player0
-
Windies at 10-1 is interesting, if they can knock up another 130 then the pitch looks like the sort that'll make a 150 chase tough.0
-
Among other reasons, yes.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
Re the Salmond remarks, it seems pretty clear - if the infamous Cameron remark was sexist, then Salmond's were too. If one was not then the other was not, seems fair and reasonable to me.0
-
No hustings yet, here out in the wilderness that is West Wales. Forgot us during the GE, will probably forget us again.SandyRentool said:I have just received an invitation to the Labour leadership hustings in Ny'castle. I guess other PBers have received similar for their local meetings. Looks like it will include the candidates for deputy too, so could be a crowded platform.
Many new members have joined since the debacle. I hope that this is a sign of better things to come. Highest membership down this way in many years now.0 -
Which is surely correct otherwise every MP who's biography contains the merest hint of an untruth is potentially up for re-election.Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
No judge is going to open that can of worms.0 -
Quite pleased that Labour managed to retain a seat at Kettering. Was fearing the worst.0
-
#UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage doing media ahead of #UKIPSouthEast Conference tomorrow. Should be a great conference pic.twitter.com/vja07egiMZ
— UKIP (@UKIP) June 5, 2015
To those think that UKIP has passed it's peak.
To those think that UKIP is sliding to oblivion.
THINK AGAIN!
UKIP will be reshaping itself, rebuilding itself and learning hard lessons.0 -
Ed Miliband 'too good for UK' says founder of @cooledmiliband twitter account on Daily Politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/05/ed-miliband-is-too-fg-good-for-this-country-says-guy-live-on-bbc-daily-politics_n_7518220.html?icid=maing-grid7|ukt2|dl1|sec3_lnk5&pLid=356449
0 -
MikeK said:
#UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage doing media ahead of #UKIPSouthEast Conference tomorrow. Should be a great conference pic.twitter.com/vja07egiMZ
— UKIP (@UKIP) June 5, 2015
To those think that UKIP has passed it's peak.
To those think that UKIP is sliding to oblivion.
THINK AGAIN!
UKIP will be reshaping itself, rebuilding itself and learning hard lessons.
Yes like not picking terrible candidates.. The media will pick up on any UKIP candidate who misbehaves or is a crook.. the past history sets it up.
UKIP's bolt is shot GE wise, they may have a say in the referendum, but it wont be decisive IMHO.0 -
Yes like not picking terrible candidates.. The media will pick up on any UKIP candidate who misbehaves or is a crook.. the past history sets it up.SquareRoot said:MikeK said:#UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage doing media ahead of #UKIPSouthEast Conference tomorrow. Should be a great conference pic.twitter.com/vja07egiMZ
— UKIP (@UKIP) June 5, 2015
To those think that UKIP has passed it's peak.
To those think that UKIP is sliding to oblivion.
THINK AGAIN!
UKIP will be reshaping itself, rebuilding itself and learning hard lessons.
UKIP's bolt is shot GE wise, they may have a say in the referendum, but it wont be decisive IMHO.
They did better at selecting candidates this GE than they did at 2010; there was just a load of media attention on them (and rightly so). Their 2015 manifesto was incomparably more professional than the 2010 one as well.
The lessons they really need to learn is to stop being the Farage party. That won't happen though, unless he chooses to go.0 -
Makes sense - I'm fine with 1 year - if he's still there at the end of May 2016 he'll cling on until 2020.rcs1000 said:0 -
Squareroot The EU referendum is the biggest bolt of energy UKIP will have had since their foundation0
-
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.HYUFD said:Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.0 -
What he actually said was "to good for this fecking country"HYUFD said:Ed Miliband 'too good for UK' says founder of @cooledmiliband twitter account on Daily Politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/05/ed-miliband-is-too-fg-good-for-this-country-says-guy-live-on-bbc-daily-politics_n_7518220.html?icid=maing-grid7|ukt2|dl1|sec3_lnk5&pLid=356449
In other words the lefts hatred of this country and those bastard voters shing through yet again.0 -
Fox Oh really, this in a week when ICM had No already over 40% in an EU referendum poll and this before the campaign has even begun. Many eurosceptic Tories are as obsessed by Europe as nats, as indeed are Kippers0
-
But were Scots that obsessed with independence before the referendum? It seems the referendum itself "awakened" people to the issue, and the same could potentially happen with Europe.foxinsoxuk said:
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.HYUFD said:Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.
0 -
Tsipras tells lenders not to humiliate Greece over debt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33020420
Greece is going for broke, and the reason is the government will fall if it doesn't.
The only slight chink for the Euro is that the IMF is starting to agree with Syriza. We shall see.0 -
As if 40,000 UKIP bottoms had received a finger up their fundament. ©Anna SoubryHYUFD said:Squareroot The EU referendum is the biggest bolt of energy UKIP will have had since their foundation
0 -
I hope they all find a country that he is good enough for. And then feck off with him to that country.Moses_ said:
What he actually said was "to good for this fecking country"HYUFD said:Ed Miliband 'too good for UK' says founder of @cooledmiliband twitter account on Daily Politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/05/ed-miliband-is-too-fg-good-for-this-country-says-guy-live-on-bbc-daily-politics_n_7518220.html?icid=maing-grid7|ukt2|dl1|sec3_lnk5&pLid=356449
In other words the lefts hatred of this country and those bastard voters shing through yet again.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with trying to build up the country we've got.0 -
MikeK said:
#UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage doing media ahead of #UKIPSouthEast Conference tomorrow. Should be a great conference pic.twitter.com/vja07egiMZ
— UKIP (@UKIP) June 5, 2015
To those think that UKIP has passed it's peak.
To those think that UKIP is sliding to oblivion.
THINK AGAIN!
UKIP will be reshaping itself, rebuilding itself and learning hard lessons.
Has anybody said that UKIP is sliding to oblivion?0 -
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.foxinsoxuk said:
Nah. Peak Kipper.HYUFD said:DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
They had their chance and blew it.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."0 -
The fight-back starts in....er...Kettering?valleyboy said:Quite pleased that Labour managed to retain a seat at Kettering. Was fearing the worst.
0 -
Ten years ago, Scots were only interested in schools 'n hospitals (or so Labour assumed). Times change.foxinsoxuk said:
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.HYUFD said:Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.
0 -
The rider to this, though, is that it currently doesn't look like the "Out" side are going to have any politicians in the same league as Salmond and Sturgeon to make the arguments.Danny565 said:
But were Scots that obsessed with independence before the referendum? It seems the referendum itself "awakened" people to the issue, and the same could potentially happen with Europe.foxinsoxuk said:
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.HYUFD said:Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.0 -
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
He was asked on the day of the leak directly in an interview whether he knew anything about it, and said "the first I knew about it was when I read it in the Telegraph".david_herdson said:
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
They're on track.MikeK said:Tsipras tells lenders not to humiliate Greece over debt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33020420
Greece is going for broke ...0 -
That's true. Though offsetting it is the fact that Eddie Izzard will no doubt campaign for In.Danny565 said:
The rider to this, though, is that it currently doesn't look like the "Out" side are going to have any politicians in the same league as Salmond and Sturgeon to make the arguments.Danny565 said:
But were Scots that obsessed with independence before the referendum? It seems the referendum itself "awakened" people to the issue, and the same could potentially happen with Europe.foxinsoxuk said:
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.HYUFD said:Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.0 -
You are living in cloud cuckoo land.MikeK said:Tsipras tells lenders not to humiliate Greece over debt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33020420
Greece is going for broke, and the reason is the government will fall if it doesn't.
The only slight chink for the Euro is that the IMF is starting to agree with Syriza. We shall see.
The IMF is not agreeing with SYRIZA/Tsipiras. The IMF is the hardliner here.
0 -
I think the biggest thing the Out campaign has going for it is that Cameron is starting from a point where he thinks we need to renegotiate our relationship. Now I'm sure that whatever happens he'll say that he's got what he thinks is a good deal, but it might not wash with some in his party.Danny565 said:
The rider to this, though, is that it currently doesn't look like the "Out" side are going to have any politicians in the same league as Salmond and Sturgeon to make the arguments.Danny565 said:
But were Scots that obsessed with independence before the referendum? It seems the referendum itself "awakened" people to the issue, and the same could potentially happen with Europe.foxinsoxuk said:
No they won't. People in the UK are not obsessed with Europe in the way Scots are about their independence.HYUFD said:Fox Even if UKIP only win a fraction of the Out voters compared to the Yes voters the SNP won , they will increase their total next time if we vote In, especially a narrow In
The 2020 election will not be about Europe.
So in a way I think you're right - I'm not sure the Out campaign can win it, but I do think the In campaign could lose it.0 -
And they wouldn't have done had not Lloyd George and Asquith behaved like a pair of five year olds.Sean_F said:
I've lost count of the number of times peak kipper has been confidently asserted here.foxinsoxuk said:
Nah. Peak Kipper.HYUFD said:DH Yes, considering they won 3% in 2010 a step forward, but once the EU ref occurs that gives them a golden opportunity to eat into the Out vote
They had their chance and blew it.
"That new Labour Party. Just a protest vote. They'll never beat the Liberals."0 -
It's actually a well-established Scottish idiom, to indicate exasperation (in this case with a deliberate interrupter). (And I suspect also Yorkie and Geordie). Not that that will wash with some of the PBers.Dair said:
As I understand it he used the exact words "behave yourself, man" in parliament in 2014.MikeSmithson said:@Dair Have you had anything to say about your sexist ex-leader? A disgrace.
Put your own house in order before focusing on others.
I do not automatically assume the use of the term "man" or "woman" to be sexist. That he's used the same term in relation to a man indicates it is not.
Perhaps the Libs and Labs displaying such levels of faux outrage should review the election campaign that has just been run and reflect on how faux outrage has worked for their respective parties.
I should again point out, I am not a member of the SNP.
0 -
That he claimed to have no knowledge about the leak until it appeared in the Telegraph. This was patently (and admitted by Carmichael) false. They are alleging that this is a false statement about his own character, i.e. that he is not a liar and a leaker.david_herdson said:
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
Neither were being sexist - politics is rough and tumble - for women to screech 'sexism' all the time is totally ridiculous. I cannot abide Salmond, he's about as slimy as politicians get but he was not being sexist.kle4 said:Re the Salmond remarks, it seems pretty clear - if the infamous Cameron remark was sexist, then Salmond's were too. If one was not then the other was not, seems fair and reasonable to me.
On topic: I wonder if the kipper dragon may have been partially slain against the Tories - but still potent against Labour unless they get their act together. Just a feeling, not backed up by much polling evidence of course - but something to watch. My feeling is simply that they shine against crap - and Cameron has proved now to most of the doubters that he ain't crap. Two very impressive wins against Labour, the second in very difficult economic circumstances may well help the tories for quite a while.0 -
That's a pretty weak case. Politicians can't be expected to tell the whole truth about everything. The issue is surely the difference between him lying there (as he clearly did if quoted there accurately), and not answering the question or answering a different question, which politicians do all the time. I doubt a court would consider that likely to swing 400+ votes.Danny565 said:
He was asked on the day of the leak directly in an interview whether he knew anything about it, and said "the first I knew about it was when I read it in the Telegraph".david_herdson said:
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
Although the IMF does want the EU and ECB to take a haircut. It would not of course apply the same to itself.rcs1000 said:
You are living in cloud cuckoo land.MikeK said:Tsipras tells lenders not to humiliate Greece over debt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33020420
Greece is going for broke, and the reason is the government will fall if it doesn't.
The only slight chink for the Euro is that the IMF is starting to agree with Syriza. We shall see.
The IMF is not agreeing with SYRIZA/Tsipiras. The IMF is the hardliner here.0 -
Moses/TUD Indeed
Danny565 An Out campaign led by Daniel Hannan, Kate Hoey, Frank Field, Nigel Farage, Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith would be a formidable one0 -
A fiendishly difficult problem involving a girl named Hannah with two different colours of sweets stumped thousands - and many took to Twitter to complain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33023123
FFs...it wasn't fiendishly difficult. It was extremely straight forward, using very very basic maths. I didn't even have to think how to do this, it was just blatantly obvious. This is just reinforcing all the cry baby nonsense on twitter. My god if Gove had actually really and truly followed through with proper reform to the standard of exams what would the reaction have been?
Compare this one to the question asked in Singapore, now that was a far more challenging question as it required some real problem solving skills and clear well thought out logic. I had to sit for quite a long time to cut through the text, write out clearly the knowns / unknowns and deduce the answer.0 -
I think this petition is just a warning shot, Heather Green's analysis is interesting and should this come to trial there are many avenues the lawyers can go down:Dair said:
That he claimed to have no knowledge about the leak until it appeared in the Telegraph. This was patently (and admitted by Carmichael) false. They are alleging that this is a false statement about his own character, i.e. that he is not a liar and a leaker.david_herdson said:
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5663/Heather-Green-The-Alistair-Carmichael-Election-Petition-the-Leak-the-Lie-and-Legal-Remedies.aspx
As this week's events show Scottish judges are prepared to look at the overall big picture. However you analyse the facts, Carmichaels failure to come clean before the election casts doubt over the result. He can bring this whole sorry affair to an end by giving the electorate a second chance. Otherwise he could be facing a messy trial, which could result in many key players being called into the witness box, and all of this taking place in the run up to Holyrood 2016.0 -
The court isn't being asked to consider if it swung 400 votes.david_herdson said:
That's a pretty weak case. Politicians can't be expected to tell the whole truth about everything. The issue is surely the difference between him lying there (as he clearly did if quoted there accurately), and not answering the question or answering a different question, which politicians do all the time. I doubt a court would consider that likely to swing 400+ votes.Danny565 said:
He was asked on the day of the leak directly in an interview whether he knew anything about it, and said "the first I knew about it was when I read it in the Telegraph".david_herdson said:
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
They are being asked to consider if it is an offence under the Representation of the People Act. Which it may be.0 -
This actually might be a consideration that will lead to Carmichael going to trial.calum said:
I think this petition is just a warning shot, Heather Green's analysis is interesting and should this come to trial there are many avenues the lawyers can go down:Dair said:
That he claimed to have no knowledge about the leak until it appeared in the Telegraph. This was patently (and admitted by Carmichael) false. They are alleging that this is a false statement about his own character, i.e. that he is not a liar and a leaker.
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5663/Heather-Green-The-Alistair-Carmichael-Election-Petition-the-Leak-the-Lie-and-Legal-Remedies.aspx
As this week's events show Scottish judges are prepared to look at the overall big picture. However you analyse the facts, Carmichaels failure to come clean before the election casts doubt over the result. He can bring this whole sorry affair to an end by giving the electorate a second chance. Otherwise he could be facing a messy trial, which could result in many key players being called into the witness box, and all of this taking place in the run up to Holyrood 2016.
Considering that Mundell will be called and have to give testimony under oath, then it may be that the Liberals are willing to sacrifice Carmichael in order to garner Tory votes and (they must hope) be the best placed challenger to the SNP in more seats than they could otherwise expect to be.
I doubt that the Liberals will be willing to offer any help to the Tories given recent events.0 -
Thanks - that is interesting, and not just for the commentcalum said:
I think this petition is just a warning shot, Heather Green's analysis is interesting and should this come to trial there are many avenues the lawyers can go down:Dair said:
[snip]
That he claimed to have no knowledge about the leak until it appeared in the Telegraph. This was patently (and admitted by Carmichael) false. They are alleging that this is a false statement about his own character, i.e. that he is not a liar and a leaker.
http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5663/Heather-Green-The-Alistair-Carmichael-Election-Petition-the-Leak-the-Lie-and-Legal-Remedies.aspx
As this week's events show Scottish judges are prepared to look at the overall big picture. However you analyse the facts, Carmichaels failure to come clean before the election casts doubt over the result. He can bring this whole sorry affair to an end by giving the electorate a second chance. Otherwise he could be facing a messy trial, which could result in many key players being called into the witness box, and all of this taking place in the run up to Holyrood 2016.
"This is the first parliamentary election petition to be brought in Scotland since the colourful if ultimately unsuccessful attempt by poet and defeated Communist candidate Hugh McDiarmid to unseat the Conservative Prime Minister in Grieve v Douglas-Home 1965 S.C. 315."
0 -
I don't think so either, I just hope that people who think it was think Cameron's was, and who think Salmond's wasn't also think Cameron's wasn't, for consistency's sake.felix said:
Neither were being sexistkle4 said:Re the Salmond remarks, it seems pretty clear - if the infamous Cameron remark was sexist, then Salmond's were too. If one was not then the other was not, seems fair and reasonable to me.
A personal anecdote that always comes to mind for me when considering exam difficulty and maths in particular is at my school where after year 1 of the sixth form, only 1 person got an A, most got Cs, and lots of people failed (me included sadly, my first outright failure academically). The school switched exam boards, and next year all but 1-2 left in the class were scoring in the 90+% range on tests.FrancisUrquhart said:A fiendishly difficult problem involving a girl named Hannah with two different colours of sweets stumped thousands - and many took to Twitter to complain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33023123
FFs...it wasn't fiendishly difficult. It was extremely straight forward, using very very basic maths. I didn't even have to think how to do this, it was just blatantly obvious. This is just reinforcing all the cry baby nonsense on twitter. My god if Gove had actually really and truly followed through with proper reform to the standard of exams what would the reaction have been?
Compare this one to the question asked in Singapore, now that was a far more challenging question as it required some real problem solving skills and clear well thought out logic. I had to sit for quite a long time to cut through the text, write out clearly the knowns / unknowns and deduce the answer.
0 -
Quite right. I still don't think it'd run. Those taking the action would have to prove that Carmichael intended to affect his return by his comment, which is arguable but not a gimme.Dair said:
The court isn't being asked to consider if it swung 400 votes.david_herdson said:
That's a pretty weak case. Politicians can't be expected to tell the whole truth about everything. The issue is surely the difference between him lying there (as he clearly did if quoted there accurately), and not answering the question or answering a different question, which politicians do all the time. I doubt a court would consider that likely to swing 400+ votes.Danny565 said:
He was asked on the day of the leak directly in an interview whether he knew anything about it, and said "the first I knew about it was when I read it in the Telegraph".david_herdson said:
What's Carmichael's alleged lie about himself? He wasn't even fingered until after the election, IIRC?Dair said:
They are intending to argue that the wording of the Act can be applied to the person who misleads (i.e. Carmichael himself). The wording of the Act appears to allow this (because it does not exclude such individuals). So the whole defence is likely to rest on the argument that the framers of the Act did not intend for lies about oneself to be grounds for an offence.Pulpstar said:
Doesn't this fall down on the fact that Sturgeon was not a candidate.rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."
They are being asked to consider if it is an offence under the Representation of the People Act. ....0 -
Felix Cameron will not be leading the Tories in 2020 and polls show 20% of Labour voters would vote Out compared to about 40-45% of Tories, by 2020 UKIP are likely to be more of a threat to the Tories, if wwc voters backed Ed Miliband in 2015 and did not vote UKIP they will back whoever Labour puts up0
-
felix
For what it is worth I think "dear" is on the sexist side "women" certainly isn't. Neither is a "disgrace" as our host put it.
Also Mike if you think Salmond's "offence" whatever that may be is on the same universe as Carmichael's lie then Liberal defeast have robbed you of any semblence of a sense of perspective.0 -
Not remotely difficult. I did it in about 90 seconds.FrancisUrquhart said:A fiendishly difficult problem involving a girl named Hannah with two different colours of sweets stumped thousands - and many took to Twitter to complain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33023123
FFs...it wasn't fiendishly difficult. It was extremely straight forward, using very very basic maths. I didn't even have to think how to do this, it was just blatantly obvious. This is just reinforcing all the cry baby nonsense on twitter. My god if Gove had actually really and truly followed through with proper reform to the standard of exams what would the reaction have been?
Compare this one to the question asked in Singapore, now that was a far more challenging question as it required some real problem solving skills and clear well thought out logic. I had to sit for quite a long time to cut through the text, write out clearly the knowns / unknowns and deduce the answer.
n sweets in the bag.
6 are orange
The rest are yellow therefore (n-6) are yellow.
The probability of picking two orange sweets (when the first one is not replaced) is (6/n)(5/(n-1)).
Multiply that out gives 30/(n^2 - n).
We are told that the probability of that occurrence is 1/3 and asked to prove that n^2 - n - 90 = 0.
Therefore 30/(n^2 - n) = 1/3.
Multiply both sides by 1/3 and by (n^2 - n) gives 90 = n^2 - n.
Simply subtract 90 from each side to provide the solution.
Solve for n can be done by inspection. It's 10.
Doddle.0 -
There have been haircuts on the table from the EU and the ECB from day one. But they come with strings. And there Greek government doesn't want to accept the conditions.MTimT said:
Although the IMF does want the EU and ECB to take a haircut. It would not of course apply the same to itself.rcs1000 said:
You are living in cloud cuckoo land.MikeK said:Tsipras tells lenders not to humiliate Greece over debt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33020420
Greece is going for broke, and the reason is the government will fall if it doesn't.
The only slight chink for the Euro is that the IMF is starting to agree with Syriza. We shall see.
The IMF is not agreeing with SYRIZA/Tsipiras. The IMF is the hardliner here.
As an aside, the IMF has the same requirements for reform that the ECB and the EU have
0 -
Ukip's appeal against the Tories is about Europe and I think the referendum has effectively shot that fox. Ukip's appeal against Labour goes much wider to include immigration and also the fact the the party leadership thinks most of their w/c supporters have no other choice.
Yes Cameron will probably be gone but there is plenty of talent to replace him with - clearly not the case with Labour. Looking at the north of England Labour did not do well outside the urban strongholds and it looks like they are mistakenly thinking that they lost because they had a crap leader. Their poor result goes much deeper than EdM. Things are trending against them in parts of the north and also in Wales and their success in some parts of London was just that - quite patchy - huge majorities where they are already strong, not many big gain seats beyond that. Apart from Muslims the ethnic vote is trending away from them as well.
I think the obvious disdain they have for many of their white w/c vote will continue to help UKIP, while elsewhere they are under serious threat from the Tories. they could be facing a perfect storm in the next few years. I no longer know, as with the LDs just what their USP is - beyond more spend , more debt and more benefits. Good luck with those.0 -
In light of that interview the other week when Mundell was asked about his knowledge of the leak, and seemed extremely keen to answer a totally different question, it would be very interesting if he had to testify in court. Although my faith in the Scots charge of perjury has been shaken somewhat by the aftermath of the Coulson verdict.Dair said:Considering that Mundell will be called and have to give testimony under oath, then it may be that the Liberals are willing to sacrifice Carmichael in order to garner Tory votes and (they must hope) be the best placed challenger to the SNP in more seats than they could otherwise expect to be.
0 -
There is a difference between being patronising and sexist. As I said, politics is a rough old game - I'm not even sure Soubry herself has complained. There is too much tendency to jump on these 'ism' bandwagons these days and I believe free speech is more important than the odd ruffled feather.scotslass said:felix
For what it is worth I think "dear" is on the sexist side "women" certainly isn't. Neither is a "disgrace" as our host put it.
Also Mike if you think Salmond's "offence" whatever that may be is on the same universe as Carmichael's lie then Liberal defeast have robbed you of any semblence of a sense of perspective.0 -
Really, not even if Sturgeon has to testify under oath?rcs1000 said:
There is literally no chance that will fly.calum said:The Carmichael petition has been published:
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/documents/CertifiedCopyofElectionPetition.pdf
They are basing it on section 106(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983:
" 106 - False statements as to candidates.
(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a)before or during an election,
(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true."0 -
There is another point about this manufactured nonsense about Salmond and sexism.
Where is the evidence? He had 40 per cent women in his Cabinet, Brown finished with 14 per cent, Cameron has a low percentage. He also shaped a women as his successor.
Also he came up against many women opponents over the years Goldie, Alexander, Lamont. He was accused of many things but not once to my recall of sexism.
So is this meant to be a trait he has just developed?
It is all a lot of hooey trumpted up by a MSM which hates Salmond because he is a threat. That some men on this site are daft enough to give it credence speaks volumes.
Real gender politics and discrimination are a great deal more fundamental than this. This rubbish just demeans the issue.0 -
The interesting thing is how Syriza are riding high in the polls at the moment. As long as they can continue to keep the creditors at bay on the one hand and restrict the cuts at home on the other, they'll remain so. And so they'll try to do so.rcs1000 said:
There have been haircuts on the table from the EU and the ECB from day one. But they come with strings. And there Greek government doesn't want to accept the conditions.MTimT said:
Although the IMF does want the EU and ECB to take a haircut. It would not of course apply the same to itself.rcs1000 said:
You are living in cloud cuckoo land.MikeK said:Tsipras tells lenders not to humiliate Greece over debt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33020420
Greece is going for broke, and the reason is the government will fall if it doesn't.
The only slight chink for the Euro is that the IMF is starting to agree with Syriza. We shall see.
The IMF is not agreeing with SYRIZA/Tsipiras. The IMF is the hardliner here.
As an aside, the IMF has the same requirements for reform that the ECB and the EU have
You suspect it'll all end in tears at some point but we've been saying that for four years and it hasn't yet (but then the knowledge of precisely that point is the sort of thing that leads to overconfidence and a failure).0 -
Felix Wrong on both counts I think. Many only voted Tory to get an EU referendum, they could quite easily switch to UKIP if that referendum does not produce an Out vote, Labour has far fewer potential Out voters going by the polls.
Any white working class voters for whom immigration was the primary concern will already have voted UKIP in 2015, if Burnham, educated at a St Helens comp and a northerner through and through, becomes leader that will be a big change from North London intellectual Ed. Polls also consistently showed Ed Miliband running behind his party, Cameron ran ahead of his0 -
"dear" in isolation could be argued to be sexist in nature. However, "calm down dear" is a phrase from popular culture and however it's original portrayal in the advert (which again may be sexist especially given the celebrity used) it is now used in a general and non-sexist way being equally applicable to men or women.scotslass said:felix
For what it is worth I think "dear" is on the sexist side "women" certainly isn't. Neither is a "disgrace" as our host put it.
Also Mike if you think Salmond's "offence" whatever that may be is on the same universe as Carmichael's lie then Liberal defeast have robbed you of any semblence of a sense of perspective.
In other words neither Cameron or Salmond has behaved inappropriately.0
