politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Seven weeks to go before Iowa and Trump remains totally dom

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Prasannan, is it? Despite being ludicrously overpowered, the Borg lose all the bloody time.

Mr Dancer,

"He will make an excellent drone!"

flightpath01 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I hope this monstrosity is never built:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35026103

If it is let it at least be renamed. One Undershaft? What kind of name is that.

It would be its address. Undershaft is a road.

I get that but similar skyscrapers that have been built lately have names that supersede the address don't they? The Gherkin is not its address is it? It's the name.

This ought to have a name too.

The proper name for the Gherkin is 30 St Mary Axe. The Gherkin is just a nickname and I believe that name has no formal standing. This one is going to struggle to get a nickname (though the block it is due to replace isn't exactly particularly eye-catching either).

London planners seem determined to ruin the London skyline.

What's wrong with the Skyline always evolving? New York hasn't been ruined by many skyscrapers much bigger than we have. Quite frankly with limited land availability in London I don't get why we don't try to rival New York in this way like in many others.

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

That's not a mandate.

We live in a representative democracy.

A majority of representatives do not support the extension of voting rights to children

Then why have an EU referendum at all? Why not trust our glorious representatives to do the right thing?

It's a reasonable question.

Personally I believe that our representatives have the freedom to do what they believe is in our interests within the scope of their delegated rights

In my view the nature of our relationship with the EU has developed in such a manner that they are acting outside of the scope of their authority and hence they need to seek the sanction of the ultimate authority - the electorate - in order to approve the new arrangements

Especially considering we mandated that they consult us in a referendum back in May.

Philip_Thompson said:

Especially considering we mandated that they consult us in a referendum back in May.

Absolutely. Let us not forget that in the general election Tories+UKIP got more than half the GB vote.

CornishBlue said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Especially considering we mandated that they consult us in a referendum back in May.

Absolutely. Let us not forget that in the general election Tories+UKIP got more than half the GB vote.

And more importantly more than half of the seats.

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!

AlastairMeeks said:

I see that this week's live-tweeting from the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting has already started.

Anything particularly juicy?

Even if we add Plaid Cymru to the list @not_on_fire gave the parties only add up to 49.1% well below Tory plus UKIP. Even adding on Sinn Fein it is 49.4% which is still below Tory plus UKIP

It wouldn't matter if the claim was true, especially since this wasn't in all their manifestos. But it's actually false. That's laughably weak.

Charles said:

I'm guessing that is defined quite tightly (I assume Richmond, etc are not "neighbouring"?) but if so then perhaps it is because of how it splits (Labour supporting workers like jobs, LibDem/Tory waverering professionals want to protect Flossie's ear-drums)

Sounds right. The political problem for politicians who don't actually care and merely want votes (which on THIS issue is I suspect a non-trivial proportion) is that the people who hate it are the ones who will change votes over it, and the ones who mildly like it, though numerous, will mostly vote as usual.

Anecdote department: in greenish mode I once signed an EDM opposing airport expansion and urging that the resources be used on improving the Chunnel link etc. A proper Commons vote (nothing decisive, just a motion on the general principle) then came up, and Greenpeace then organised an email bombardment of the MPs who had backed their line to tell us to keep to their promises. Emails came in round the clock every few seconds, massively disrupting our work and stopping genuine constituents from getting through. I complained, pointing out that I was on their side. They said too bad, we want to make sure you stay that way.

So I said bugger off, I won't be blackmailed: I'm now going to vote FOR expansion, just to make the point of how bloody counter-productive your campaign method is. And I did.

Strong support for Rosie at PLP meeting according to Paul Waugh.

Will the leaks be more detailed this week?

surbiton said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?

THe whole thing is a pre-planned charade !

I should hope so. The bulk of the negotiations happened before the General Election I'm convinced just in case we won. Now it's dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Sensible governance IMO.

Roger said:

Completely OT. 'Carol'. Set in 1952. Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett become lovers. The charm of 'Brief Encounter' with the panache of 'Un homme et Une femme' set in an Edward Hopper landscape. My film of the year by a distance

Always welcome, Roger.

Philip_Thompson said:

Even if we add Plaid Cymru to the list @not_on_fire gave the parties only add up to 49.1% well below Tory plus UKIP. Even adding on Sinn Fein it is 49.4% which is still below Tory plus UKIP

It wouldn't matter if the claim was true, especially since this wasn't in all their manifestos. But it's actually false. That's laughably weak.

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/600282994524463104
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/600283502966345729

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Are you sure? The DUP were against in 2012 and 2014.

BigRich said:

Philip_Thompson said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!

Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote

Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%

But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%

Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)

And apparently slim wins don't count as proper mandates for big changes anyway, when one is just on the wrong side of them at any rate, so even if all the other side support that policy and all their supporters do too, it would not count as an actual 'mandate' to some.

Article suggests Lords may come up with new amendment that has same effect (ie vote at 16).

But surely that would also cost money so would also be deemed a money resolution?

Re the EU referendum.
Will there be an actual treaty change on whatever bits Cameron wins?
Otherwise, what is to stop the ECJ, European Parliament, future non Tory government seeking to undermine it all?

What about the amendment giving votes at 16 in Local elections?

That has already been reversed by Commons but still has to go back to the Lords.

Has that been deemed a money resolution?

Don't think any such thing was reported and presumably it's already happened so suspect not. But if not, why not?

Tories + UKIP + UUP + DUP = 50.5% UK-wide
Tories + UKIP = 55% across England

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/673935966575403013

Pulpstar said:

I expect the EU will deal with Britain's requests as soon as possible, no ifs, no buts. They'll make cast iron guarantees to us, which they'll promise to keep.

It all strikes me that it will be like Churchill's percentages agreement with Stalin.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tories + UKIP + UUP + DUP = 50.5% UK-wide
Tories + UKIP = 55% across England

Also Tories + UKIP > 50% in Britain.

AndyJS said:

Any particular reason why the oil price is dropping like a stone today?

OPEC? Decision not to limit production?

Speedy said:

Since this is a 2016, new Iowa poll from Monmouth, last one 6 weeks ago at Carson-mania peak, now new flavour of the month is Cruz:

Cruz 24 /+14
Trump 19 /+1
Rubio 17 /+7
Carson 13 /-19
Bush 6/ -2
Paul 4 /+1
Fiorina 3 /-2
Kasich 3 /+1
Christie 2 /+1
Huckabee 2 /0

http://tinyurl.com/prn85tg

Interesting. Why Cruz and not Rubio though?

You Gov poll inquest.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/07/analysis-what-went-wrong-our-ge15-polling-and-what/

BigRich said:

BigRich said:

Philip_Thompson said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!

Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote

Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%

But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%

Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)

OK got the numbers for GB

Tory: 37.7%
UKIP: 12.9%

Total: 50.6%

so gust over half of GB votes

But clearly everyone who voted for the government was misled by the evull Tuuries.

So their votes don't count. Or something.

MikeL said:

Speedy said:

Since this is a 2016, new Iowa poll from Monmouth, last one 6 weeks ago at Carson-mania peak, now new flavour of the month is Cruz:

Cruz 24 /+14
Trump 19 /+1
Rubio 17 /+7
Carson 13 /-19
Bush 6/ -2
Paul 4 /+1
Fiorina 3 /-2
Kasich 3 /+1
Christie 2 /+1
Huckabee 2 /0

http://tinyurl.com/prn85tg

Is the release of this poll the absolutely key moment?

If Cruz (or Rubio) wins Iowa then does most of the non-Trump vote move to him and he is then clear frontrunner?

Basically it will be like 2012, with Trump playing Romney and whoever wins Iowa playing Santorum.

Carnyx said:

Interesting. Would you recommend a snail mail letter over an email, in general, as a way of asking one's MP to follow one's concerns?

In general yes. Techie MPs like me tended to deal personally with all emails the same day and take longer to get round to the long handwritten screeds, but most MPs delegate email to staff, who weed out emails that they think not worth bothering the boss with. By contrast, all written letters get an answer.

But the main thing is that if your MP says he'll vote the way you want, don't respond by hassling him to death - just say "Thanks, appreciated". And even if he's not going to, you probably won't change his mind by being a pain in the bum - a polite plea to think again has a better chance.

dr_spyn said:

You Gov poll inquest.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/07/analysis-what-went-wrong-our-ge15-polling-and-what/

"We have begun increasing the number of non politically engaged people on the panel"

But if they do that - they then send them a voting poll and they reply even though they wouldn't bother to go to polling station (and may not be registered).

Surely it is dead simple. If X% of votes at the last GE were cast by 18 to 24s then in any poll ensure that X% of the sample are 18 to 24.

The whole thing was blindingly obvious - several people including myself posted repeatedly before GE 2015 that the number of 18 to 24s in YouGov polls had to be too high - they were assuming turnout (of the 18 to 24 population) almost identical to over 60s which couldn't possibly be right.

Now they appear to be overcomplicating it - keep it simple.

surbiton said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Just read the letter from Tusk. Reads to me like someone preparing to concede on the four years issue but not on a veto for Euro outs (which I always imagined to be impossible to agree). May not happen yet but given everyone said Cameron would never achieve the four year thing, if he does I wonder who will give him credit for it?

THe whole thing is a pre-planned charade !

Obviously.

NickPalmer said:

pbr2013 said:

Can't the gov just repeal the Single European Act and see how our partners react?

Yes. It's equivalent to sleeping with your partner's sister to see how your partner will react. "Not in a way conducive to a harmonious outcome" is a fair guess.

Alan Clark managed ok...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/clark-i-deserve-to-be-horsewhipped-mary-braid-and-rhys-williams-watched-the-media-circus-as-the-1419604.html

not_on_fire said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.

Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.

Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support

Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?

Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.

BigRich said:

BigRich said:

Philip_Thompson said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!

Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote

Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%

But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%

Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)

OK got the numbers for GB

Tory: 37.7%
UKIP: 12.9%

Total: 50.6%

so gust over half of GB votes

When it comes to arguments about mandates, somehow Tory and UKIP voters don't count.

Sean_F said:

not_on_fire said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.

Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.

Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support

Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?

Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.

I believe the new plan is to lower it to 16 months. "Old enough to independently feed, old enough to vote" is the slogan.

dr_spyn said:

You Gov poll inquest.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/07/analysis-what-went-wrong-our-ge15-polling-and-what/

It's worrying that the pollsters seem to have made one of the more simple errors in under-representing older voters and over-representing younger ones.

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

not_on_fire said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fire, those parties also support not having the Conservatives in government.

Percentage of the vote is irrelevant. MPs make the PM.

Hard to argue there is "no mandate" for a change over half the population support

Are you sure that most people want to lower the voting age to 16?

Back in my grandparents' time, there was a good case for it. Most people were in work by 15, and could be fighting by 16 (and my great-uncle lied about his age to join the army at 15). But, not now that childhood has been extended.

I believe the new plan is to lower it to 16 months. "Old enough to independently feed, old enough to vote" is the slogan.

'baby led tweeting'

Loving the twitter spat between Tom Watson and comical Eoin.

Sean_F said:

BigRich said:

BigRich said:

Philip_Thompson said:

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave listened to my idea.

David Cameron is facing fresh accusations of ‘arrogance’ after it emerged the Government is set to kill off plans to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum.

Ahead of a crunch Commons vote on Tuesday, it emerged that a House of Lords plan to extend the franchise to under-18s could be stymied because it involves spending money that can only be approved by the Commons.

http://bit.ly/1QrkHPR

Good it is a disgusting abuse for the unelected partisans to try and alter who has the vote without a mandate to do so. The Lords purview is to amend legislation to improve it, not to invent new legislation all by itself and attempt to foist it onto a separate issue like this.

If the vote is to be extended to children let it be done as primary legislation on its own right.

There is a mandate. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and the NI parties all support lowering the voting age to 16, and together got more than 50% of the votes at the last election.

Hold on a second lets go back to this ... No they didn't!

Well in 2015, as a % of UK Vote

Tory: 36.8%, UKIP: 12.7% total 49.5%

But that's UK votes, I don't have the numbers to hand but I suspect that when you tack of Northern Ireland I.E. become GB then the 49.5% probably increases to over 50%

Whether this is a usefull thing to do is another matter. But sometimes we see so many protests by lest wingers complaining that the Tory Mandate is 'invalid', we can forget how well they (and UKIP acthay did)

OK got the numbers for GB

Tory: 37.7%
UKIP: 12.9%

Total: 50.6%

so gust over half of GB votes

When it comes to arguments about mandates, somehow Tory and UKIP voters don't count.

I found Lefties shut up fairly quickly after the election when they cried for PR, and I pointed out that in that case we'd prob have a Tory government propped up by UKIP.

They've moved on now to things like discouraging the old to vote, on the basis it's selfish given their remaining time on the earth, and advocating the enfranchisement of the very young.

I still can't work out what Lucy Allan (majority 730) was trying to achieve, unless it is an unexpected by-election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35027252

@SpecCoffeeHouse: Tories begin to attack Sadiq Khan for his links to Jeremy Corbyn https://t.co/xBEFdejiw9 by @sebastianepayne

dr_spyn said:

I still can't work out what Lucy Allan (majority 730) was trying to achieve, unless it is an unexpected by-election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35027252

The only conclusion I can come to is that she wanted to big up the messages she was receiving, and just never expected the writer to (a) notice (b) break anonymity to prove her wrong.

Stupid of her.

AndyJS said:

dr_spyn said:

You Gov poll inquest.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/07/analysis-what-went-wrong-our-ge15-polling-and-what/

It's worrying that the pollsters seem to have made one of the more simple errors in under-representing older voters and over-representing younger ones.

Not quite. They had the wrong sort of young people in their sample. The young people they had were enthusiastically politically engaged, (and were consequently more likely to vote Labour). They're trying to fix it by recruiting less-politically engaged youth to their panel.

Philip_Thompson said:

dr_spyn said:

I still can't work out what Lucy Allan (majority 730) was trying to achieve, unless it is an unexpected by-election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35027252

Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.

Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?

The delete button is a friend not a foe. Why dig a bigger hole for herself by adding more to a ridiculous response.

dr_spyn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dr_spyn said:

I still can't work out what Lucy Allan (majority 730) was trying to achieve, unless it is an unexpected by-election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35027252

Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.

Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?

The delete button is a friend not a foe. Why dig a bigger hole for herself by adding more to a ridiculous response.

She did delete it. People asked for an explanation and screenshots were taken.

Philip_Thompson said:

dr_spyn said:

I still can't work out what Lucy Allan (majority 730) was trying to achieve, unless it is an unexpected by-election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35027252

Maybe just maybe she was fed up of hateful mail and death threats etc and posted them like she said. Maybe, just maybe, like she said they got edited together badly.

Since no individual was named it can't be libel or slander. There is zero possible reason for this to trigger a by election. How about you have a go at people sending death threats that the Police are investigating rather than the people who react badly to receiving them?

For obvious reasons I tend to sympathise with MPs who get hate mail. But the mail she published and then embellished was pretty mild compared with many. It would have been more sensible to publish the offending email that she says she took it from.

I will say that the only death threat I ever had was from a local hunt supporter who said he'd kill me if I voted for the hunt ban. Rather endearingly, he gave his name and address, not the action of a cunning psychopath. The police had a word with him and we heard nothing more.

Casino_Royale said:

That Tusk letter in full:

(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto
(2) Yes, we were doing it anyway (why is it even on here?)
(3) Ever closer union already means what you think it should Mr. Cameron. Let's move on.
(4) Nah. You might get something on child benefits, maybe. Really tough crowd.

But we need to find a way to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters to vote Remain, so let's come up with something and give it a nice gloss.

To be continued..

My interpretation:
(1) We'll come up with some words about being nice to non-euro countries, but forget a veto
(2) Yes, we are doing that as you always push us on that.
(3) OK ever closer union is not for everyone we can agree to that. The idea of all nations following same path is history now.
(4) Not saying yes to that yet but not ruling it out. If you drop one we will agree to this do we have a deal?

Is Boswell the first ever MP who has avoided tax ?

MP_SE said:

What she did was dishonest and tarnishes the reputation of politicians even more than it already is.

I'd welcome a daily by-election but if every misjudgement on twitter lead to one - we'd have alot ^^;

Pulpstar said:

MP_SE said:

What she did was dishonest and tarnishes the reputation of politicians even more than it already is.

I'd welcome a daily by-election but if every misjudgement on twitter lead to one - we'd have alot ^^;

It was a bit rough of her to add the bit he didn't say to the facebook post.... whether that is enough to spark a by election I don't know, but its poor form from an MP