That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
As it should be, though for politicians we are electing people based on their beliefs, so the candidates beliefs should weigh into it shouldn't they?
I am very happy to elect anyone secular, so long as the rest of their beliefs also go along with my political beliefs. If someone wants to start setting laws based on their religion, as many have made a point of emphasising, then it is surely reasonable for that to be viewed as a red flag?
"This suggests that fraud rates on universal credit are about four times higher than on most other benefits.
Ironically, one of the original goals of universal credit was to save about a billion pounds in fraud and error."
Classic
And no doubt the Ministers in charge of the DHSS (or whatever it's called now) will make it their mission to chase after the claimants whose names have been used.
I'm off the clock and I have just under a hour before I catch a train. Such luxury of free time, i feel positively decadent. Upon what smidgen shall I bestow the benefits of my infinite wisdom? Hmm
He also said he was a Republican the other day, by far the worst First Minister Wales has had, at least Adam Price looks the part if Wales wants a First Minister who is a Nationalist.
Plus Wales voted Leave just like England
“Wales voted Leave” isn’t an antidote to Welsh nationalism.
What are the equivalent figures for Labour and the population at large?
I have the sneaking suspicion that you're asking that not in good faith but because you know that polling question wasn't put to the Labour membership or the population at large.
Do you know of any similar polling that gives an indication that Conservative voters or members hold attitudes towards Muslims/Islam which are broadly similar to Labour or the general population?
My question is entirely in good faith. How on earth can anyone evaluate the significance of a figure if you don't know whether it's higher than, about the same as, or lower than the figures for other segments of the population? And even if there is a difference, it might be one simply of age.
I suspect there is also a question of interpretation
When you prompt for “Muslim” at bet most people think of their local imam (and identify them strongly with a sub-group in the nation rather than all of them). Many will think of ISIS
In practice if you presented them with an agnostic Muslim like the Saj or a “good Muslim boy” like @thescreamingeagles I doubt their religion would have more than a marginal impact on voting intention
A better comparison might be with a practising Muslim like Sadiq Khan, rather than someone like Sajid Javid or Boris Johnson who only has Muslim ancestry.
Fair point. Obviously London is different but didn’t Zac find highlighting his religion had at best a minimal (and possibly a negative) impact?
I suspect this is a issue that features highly went prompted but has very low salience / real world impact
"This suggests that fraud rates on universal credit are about four times higher than on most other benefits.
Ironically, one of the original goals of universal credit was to save about a billion pounds in fraud and error."
Classic
And no doubt the Ministers in charge of the DHSS (or whatever it's called now) will make it their mission to chase after the claimants whose names have been used.
Judging by “Jade’s” story on the link she is the victim of the fraud not the government
The uplift is for the solicitor, not counsel. I am not at all surprised that solicitors dealing with such a high profile case received an uplift.
Uplift is a great concept.
Can I bill an extra 50% when I feel my usual houly rate doesn't cover my magnificent results?
Certainly not Foxy. Just think of the damage that would be wreaked on your finances by the additional pension contributions.
In reality the scales awarded by the Courts in Scotland normally allow the successful party to recover between 50% and 70% of the actual costs that they incur to their solicitors. In a case like this I would have expected the charge out rate to push the percentage towards the bottom end of that spread. A 50% uplift therefore doesn't necessarily result in more money for the lawyer (although it might) but less of a cost for the successful party.
Completely off topic - for those who have been renewing NI Index Linked savings certificates as they expire, is anyone moving away from them now they are linked to CPI rather than RPI? Looks like quite a big cut?
"This suggests that fraud rates on universal credit are about four times higher than on most other benefits.
Ironically, one of the original goals of universal credit was to save about a billion pounds in fraud and error."
Classic
And no doubt the Ministers in charge of the DHSS (or whatever it's called now) will make it their mission to chase after the claimants whose names have been used.
Judging by “Jade’s” story on the link she is the victim of the fraud not the government
To me it looks as though both are. Although you are right in that she seems in the greater jeopardy.
He also said he was a Republican the other day, by far the worst First Minister Wales has had, at least Adam Price looks the part if Wales wants a First Minister who is a Nationalist.
Plus Wales voted Leave just like England
“Wales voted Leave” isn’t an antidote to Welsh nationalism.
The Brexit Party got comfortably more votes than Plaid in the European Parliament elections in Wales
He also said he was a Republican the other day, by far the worst First Minister Wales has had, at least Adam Price looks the part if Wales wants a First Minister who is a Nationalist.
Plus Wales voted Leave just like England
“Wales voted Leave” isn’t an antidote to Welsh nationalism.
The Brexit Party got comfortably more votes than Plaid in the European Parliament elections in Wales
So what? The Brexit Party appeals to people who place leaving the EU ahead of the union.
"This suggests that fraud rates on universal credit are about four times higher than on most other benefits.
Ironically, one of the original goals of universal credit was to save about a billion pounds in fraud and error."
Classic
The problem is a lot of dishonest people, not the government.
I think that's a little generous. The problem is a benefit that is not payable for an absurd period of time (for those with little or nothing) whilst entitlement is being assessed resulting in irresistible pressure for a loan/advance scheme with minimal checks to cover the gap giving rise to an obvious opportunity for fraud and deception.
"This suggests that fraud rates on universal credit are about four times higher than on most other benefits.
Ironically, one of the original goals of universal credit was to save about a billion pounds in fraud and error."
Classic
IDS competing with his mate Grayling to see who can piss away our taxes most effectively.
Since Universal Credit replaces multiple other benefits (more than 4?), then it seems understandable that fraud would be of greater magnitude. The story is very unclear as to whether, when measured fairly, UC is vulnerable to fraud to a greater or lesser degree than the benefits it has replaced.
"This suggests that fraud rates on universal credit are about four times higher than on most other benefits.
Ironically, one of the original goals of universal credit was to save about a billion pounds in fraud and error."
Classic
IDS competing with his mate Grayling to see who can piss away our taxes most effectively.
Since Universal Credit replaces multiple other benefits (more than 4?), then it seems understandable that fraud would be of greater magnitude. The story is very unclear as to whether, when measured fairly, UC is vulnerable to fraud to a greater or lesser degree than the benefits it has replaced.
That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
Labour have been consistently calling for an election. They would happily oblige Boris surely.
That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
Labour have been consistently calling for an election. They would happily oblige Boris surely.
Of course, with caveats. "We agree to call a GE subject to a no No Deal act is passed first."
Roger Federer effortlessly winning games against someone 15 years his junior.
That's nothing. I could do that when I was 18
Really? I think I managed it when I was 15, but not since.
In answer to your other question, the Bath based Nat is extremely displeased that he has had to cough up all costs for Kezia Dugdale just because he lost a libel action he brought.
That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
Labour have been consistently calling for an election. They would happily oblige Boris surely.
Ineed.
The idea Labour would vote against a general election, when offered, is fanciful. No Opposition could do that and remain credible which is why FTPA is basically a worthless piece of legislation.
That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
Labour have been consistently calling for an election. They would happily oblige Boris surely.
Ineed.
The idea Labour would vote against a general election, when offered, is fanciful. No Opposition could do that and remain credible which is why FTPA is basically a worthless piece of legislation.
That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
Labour have been consistently calling for an election. They would happily oblige Boris surely.
Ineed.
The idea Labour would vote against a general election, when offered, is fanciful. No Opposition could do that and remain credible which is why FTPA is basically a worthless piece of legislation.
Roger Federer effortlessly winning games against someone 15 years his junior.
That's nothing. I could do that when I was 18
Really? I think I managed it when I was 15, but not since.
In answer to your other question, the Bath based Nat is extremely displeased that he has had to cough up all costs for Kezia Dugdale just because he lost a libel action he brought.
That's why Boris will get in first (if he's got any sense) and call an election in September on his own terms.
Just one problem with that. He can't call an election on his own terms. He's going to need the cooperation of Labour to achieve that. They may have other ideas.
Labour have been consistently calling for an election. They would happily oblige Boris surely.
Ineed.
The idea Labour would vote against a general election, when offered, is fanciful. No Opposition could do that and remain credible which is why FTPA is basically a worthless piece of legislation.
People are forgetting the timing issues in this. any election called in October would have a polling day after B-Day and BJ has said he's leaving on 31 october no matter what. Given the law as it stands any election called after the first couple of weeks in September would be very tight to 31 October assuming a week to get the new parliament up and running (regardless of whether there were coalition negotiations)
Roger Federer effortlessly winning games against someone 15 years his junior.
That's nothing. I could do that when I was 18
Really? I think I managed it when I was 15, but not since.
In answer to your other question, the Bath based Nat is extremely displeased that he has had to cough up all costs for Kezia Dugdale just because he lost a libel action he brought.
My heart bleeds
The funny part is, he's really angry at being ordered to pay costs, because he still thinks he actually won. The judge ruled he wasn't a homophobic bigot, so therefore, in his mind, he was vindicated. And therefore, should not have to pay costs, just because he brought an action and the judge ruled that while wrong Dugdale's remarks were not unreasonable.
Abject humiliation. There will be so much tactical voting at the next GE to prevent a Tory government that prostrates the UK at the feet of the Trumps that any seat forecasts at this stage are almost pointless. https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1148167705935130624?s=21
Roger Federer effortlessly winning games against someone 15 years his junior.
That's nothing. I could do that when I was 18
Really? I think I managed it when I was 15, but not since.
In answer to your other question, the Bath based Nat is extremely displeased that he has had to cough up all costs for Kezia Dugdale just because he lost a libel action he brought.
My heart bleeds
The funny part is, he's really angry at being ordered to pay costs, because he still thinks he actually won. The judge ruled he wasn't a homophobic bigot, so therefore, in his mind, he was vindicated. And therefore, should not have to pay costs, just because he brought an action and the judge ruled that while wrong Dugdale's remarks were not unreasonable.
Reminds me of that Terry Pratchett bit: "I'm not mad. I even have a certificate to prove it."
Abject humiliation. There will be so much tactical voting at the next GE to prevent a Tory government that prostrates the UK at the feet of the Trumps that any seat forecasts at this stage are almost pointless. https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1148167705935130624?s=21
That and the length of the campaign means that it's really tough to keep the agenda on Brexit. The last election was a 'Brexit Election' but more time was spent on the tory social care policy
Abject humiliation. There will be so much tactical voting at the next GE to prevent a Tory government that prostrates the UK at the feet of the Trumps that any seat forecasts at this stage are almost pointless. https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1148167705935130624?s=21
Saying sorry is abject humiliation? And aren't they saying sorry it was leaked, not sorry for the contents?
He also said he was a Republican the other day, by far the worst First Minister Wales has had, at least Adam Price looks the part if Wales wants a First Minister who is a Nationalist.
Plus Wales voted Leave just like England
“Wales voted Leave” isn’t an antidote to Welsh nationalism.
He also said he was a Republican the other day, by far the worst First Minister Wales has had, at least Adam Price looks the part if Wales wants a First Minister who is a Nationalist.
Plus Wales voted Leave just like England
“Wales voted Leave” isn’t an antidote to Welsh nationalism.
Lib Dems have taken a good look at the anointed Swinson and not liked what they saw. We did try to tell you.
The usual old nonsense I see, I'd argue Ed Davey has run a professional campaign and has said a lot of things on campaigning and environmental change LD members have wanted to hear.
Davey is a proven activist and street fighter and that carries a lot of weight. It's not that Swinson is poor, she is very good - it's just Davey is better.
One way to get rid of Boris, Brexit, Corbyn and Farage at the same time is for the Lib Dems to get 45 % of the vote. Via Baxter I get a majority of 400 which should be enough.
Labour continue to go from ridiculous to absurd. Do they think they are being clever?
If they want ambiguity and allow different MPs to be pro remain or pro leave, a better way would be to say all their MPs guaranteed free votes on any Brexit issue as the country is split down the middle. It would be clear and simple, probably less optimal than coming out for remain, but much easier to make your position clear and justify it than breaking it down into a series of hypothetical steps that may never happen.
One way to get rid of Boris, Brexit, Corbyn and Farage at the same time is for the Lib Dems to get 45 % of the vote. Via Baxter I get a majority of 400 which should be enough.
The ComRes poll, commissioned by the Telegraph, puts the Tories at 345 MPs with Labour at 207 and the Brexit Party at none.
Isn't that down from a 140 seat majority just a couple of weeks ago? I think we've seen this episode before...
Backward engineering that predicted result (345 Con, 207 Lab, zero BXP) implies Con 7% ahead of Labour having taken 10% points off BXP.
Something like Con 32%, Lab 25% LD 16% BXP 12%.
The actual figures are on the website, summing to 70% with DK and DV at 30% for Johnson and 31% for Hunt. So multiply by 100/70 and 100/69 and you can derive the figures as normally presented.
Figures are, as published, and also excluding DK/DV in brackets: - with Johnson leader Con 22%(31.4%), Lab 17%(24.3%), Brexit 10%(14.3%), LD 12%(17.1%), SNP 2%(2.9%) - with Hunt leader Con 18%(26.1%), Lab 18%(26.1%), Brexit 12%(17.4%), LD 12%(17.4%), SNP 2%(2.9%)
(Figures shown to spurious accuracy of 0.1% in the interests of avoiding compounding the prior rounding error in the published figures.)
He also said he was a Republican the other day, by far the worst First Minister Wales has had, at least Adam Price looks the part if Wales wants a First Minister who is a Nationalist.
Plus Wales voted Leave just like England
“Wales voted Leave” isn’t an antidote to Welsh nationalism.
One way to get rid of Boris, Brexit, Corbyn and Farage at the same time is for the Lib Dems to get 45 % of the vote. Via Baxter I get a majority of 400 which should be enough.
Tice is a complete and utter arse hole how the hell did the U.K. send twats like him and Widdecombe to represent us in Europe is beyond belief, they should wear America First hats an t shirts and be locked up for treason
Lib Dems have taken a good look at the anointed Swinson and not liked what they saw. We did try to tell you.
The usual old nonsense I see, I'd argue Ed Davey has run a professional campaign and has said a lot of things on campaigning and environmental change LD members have wanted to hear.
Davey is a proven activist and street fighter and that carries a lot of weight. It's not that Swinson is poor, she is very good - it's just Davey is better.
Don’t get me wrong. You’re making the best choice. And I wish you all the best in England, and perhaps Wales if you come to an amicable agreement with Plaid.
Swinson is a turnip. But I fully understand that you cannot publicly agree.
One way to get rid of Boris, Brexit, Corbyn and Farage at the same time is for the Lib Dems to get 45 % of the vote. Via Baxter I get a majority of 400 which should be enough.
Lib Dems have taken a good look at the anointed Swinson and not liked what they saw. We did try to tell you.
The usual old nonsense I see, I'd argue Ed Davey has run a professional campaign and has said a lot of things on campaigning and environmental change LD members have wanted to hear.
Davey is a proven activist and street fighter and that carries a lot of weight. It's not that Swinson is poor, she is very good - it's just Davey is better.
Don’t get me wrong. You’re making the best choice. And I wish you all the best in England, and perhaps Wales if you come to an amicable agreement with Plaid.
Swinson is a turnip. But I fully understand that you cannot publicly agree.
Lib Dems have taken a good look at the anointed Swinson and not liked what they saw. We did try to tell you.
The usual old nonsense I see, I'd argue Ed Davey has run a professional campaign and has said a lot of things on campaigning and environmental change LD members have wanted to hear.
Davey is a proven activist and street fighter and that carries a lot of weight. It's not that Swinson is poor, she is very good - it's just Davey is better.
Don’t get me wrong. You’re making the best choice. And I wish you all the best in England, and perhaps Wales if you come to an amicable agreement with Plaid.
Swinson is a turnip. But I fully understand that you cannot publicly agree.
Lib Dems have taken a good look at the anointed Swinson and not liked what they saw. We did try to tell you.
The usual old nonsense I see, I'd argue Ed Davey has run a professional campaign and has said a lot of things on campaigning and environmental change LD members have wanted to hear.
Davey is a proven activist and street fighter and that carries a lot of weight. It's not that Swinson is poor, she is very good - it's just Davey is better.
Don’t get me wrong. You’re making the best choice. And I wish you all the best in England, and perhaps Wales if you come to an amicable agreement with Plaid.
Swinson is a turnip. But I fully understand that you cannot publicly agree.
As an aside, would you advocate SNP candidates standing down in LD seats? Would you advocate LD candidates standing aside in SNP seats?
Comments
Born in 1938. First elected in 1976
[sees @Tissue_Price 's post]
Dude! Yellow boxes have returned! Excellent!
(what can i tell you, I'm shameless...
I suspect this is a issue that features highly went prompted but has very low salience / real world impact
Can I bill an extra 50% when I feel my usual houly rate doesn't cover my magnificent results?
In reality the scales awarded by the Courts in Scotland normally allow the successful party to recover between 50% and 70% of the actual costs that they incur to their solicitors. In a case like this I would have expected the charge out rate to push the percentage towards the bottom end of that spread. A 50% uplift therefore doesn't necessarily result in more money for the lawyer (although it might) but less of a cost for the successful party.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/08/boris-johnson-would-deliver-40-seat-majority-tories-election/
The ComRes poll, commissioned by the Telegraph, puts the Tories at 345 MPs with Labour at 207 and the Brexit Party at none.
I think we've seen this episode before...
In answer to your other question, the Bath based Nat is extremely displeased that he has had to cough up all costs for Kezia Dugdale just because he lost a libel action he brought.
The idea Labour would vote against a general election, when offered, is fanciful. No Opposition could do that and remain credible which is why FTPA is basically a worthless piece of legislation.
Something like Con 32%, Lab 25% LD 16% BXP 12%.
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1148167705935130624?s=21
Braying is not a sustainable political strategy.
Current Baxter prediction, Vauxhall:
Liberal Democrats 39%
Labour 32%
Con 12%
Grn 8%
Bxp 7%
Davey is a proven activist and street fighter and that carries a lot of weight. It's not that Swinson is poor, she is very good - it's just Davey is better.
One way to get rid of Boris, Brexit, Corbyn and Farage at the same time is for the Lib Dems to get 45 % of the vote. Via Baxter I get a majority of 400 which should be enough.
I am afraid of no-one and not in the slightest bit interested in currying favour with politicians or FCO wallahs.
So multiply by 100/70 and 100/69 and you can derive the figures as normally presented.
Figures are, as published, and also excluding DK/DV in brackets:
- with Johnson leader Con 22%(31.4%), Lab 17%(24.3%), Brexit 10%(14.3%), LD 12%(17.1%), SNP 2%(2.9%)
- with Hunt leader Con 18%(26.1%), Lab 18%(26.1%), Brexit 12%(17.4%), LD 12%(17.4%), SNP 2%(2.9%)
(Figures shown to spurious accuracy of 0.1% in the interests of avoiding compounding the prior rounding error in the published figures.)
Swinson is a turnip. But I fully understand that you cannot publicly agree.