If only 17 out of 71 delegates for Trump in Pennsylvania are bound, when he's won 56.8% of the vote, who gets the rest?
They can vote as they like. Some of them have given indications of what they will do but they are not binding.
Btw if you look on the previous thread there are some interesting comments from Pulpstar about the individual districts (which is where these unbound people come in).
Migration Watch said that according to official migration figures an average of 40,000 Eastern European migrants a year came to Britain between 2010 and 2015.
However over the same period separate figures showed that the number of people in the UK who were born in Eastern European countries rose by an average of 90,000 a year. The figures would mean that net migration from the European Union is now greater than net migration from the rest of the World for the first time.
So, we'll have two members of the gilded East Coast elite running against each other while pretending they are plucky outsiders.
Comes as a shock doesn't it?
I just don't understand how anyone buys it.
It sometimes seems like every nominated candidate in my lifetime has claimed to be an outsider who will clean up Washington. I think even Bush Snr said that at one point.
So, we'll have two members of the gilded East Coast elite running against each other while pretending they are plucky outsiders.
Comes as a shock doesn't it?
I just don't understand how anyone buys it.
It sometimes seems like every nominated candidate in my lifetime has claimed to be an outsider who will clean up Washington. I think even Bush Snr said that at one point.
Jeb bush did too. So bloody ridiculous. Our own politicians try the same sort of thing, but it doesn't seem quite as bad as in the US, not quite as divorced from reality. Trump is at least an outsider politically, even if he is elite, which gives influence even if he was Not playing the elected politician game.
So, we'll have two members of the gilded East Coast elite running against each other while pretending they are plucky outsiders.
Comes as a shock doesn't it?
I just don't understand how anyone buys it.
It sometimes seems like every nominated candidate in my lifetime has claimed to be an outsider who will clean up Washington. I think even Bush Snr said that at one point.
Jeb bush did too. So bloody ridiculous. Our own politicians try the same sort of thing, but it doesn't seem quite as bad as in the US, not quite as divorced from reality. Trump is at least an outsider politically, even if he is elite, which gives influence even if he was Not playing the elected politician game.
Yes, I seem to recall Andy Burnham's "I am not a Westminster politician."
Tue, May 3 Indiana 92 57 (WTA) Open Sat, May 7 Guam (D) 12 - Closed Tue, May 10 Nebraska (R) - 36 Closed Tue, May 10 West Virginia 37 34 Mixed Tue, May 17 Kentucky (D) 61 - Closed Tue, May 17 Oregon 73 28 (P) Closed Tue, May 24 Washington (R)* - 44 (P) Closed Sat, Jun 4 Virgin Islands Caucus (D) 12 - Open Sun, Jun 5 Puerto Rico Caucus (D) 67 - Open Tue, Jun 7 California 546 172 (P) Mixed Tue, Jun 7 Montana 27 27 (WTA) Open Tue, Jun 7 New Jersey 142 51 (WTA) Mixed Tue, Jun 7 New Mexico 43 24 (P) Closed Tue, Jun 7 North Dakota Caucus (D) 23 - Closed Tue, Jun 7 South Dakota 25 29 (WTA) Closed Tue, Jun 14 District of Columbia (D) 46 - Closed
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
The City would flourish outside the European Union, unshackled by the constant drift towards regulation from Brussels, according to a paper due to be published this week by the so-called Gang of Eight of leading Brexiteer economists.
Economists led by Margaret Thatcher’s former adviser Patrick Minford are publishing a paper on Thursday aimed at countering the Treasury’s pro-EU research pamphlet last week.
The team, including Gerard Lyons – economic adviser to Boris Johnson, Roger Bootle of Capital Economics and Ryan Bourne, head of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs are frustrated at how the Vote Leave campaign has failed to tackle the Government’s economic arguments adequately.
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
btw the Speccy show last night sounds fun, I would have loved to be sat in between TSE and Nabavi as Hannan was cheered and Umunna and Kendall looked on.
You people have cast aside your true conservative values in the sycophantic defence of one man, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Tantalisingly close. If he continues to overperform like this he'll do it.
It is now likely that he will at least break 1200 I think.
Cali has 172 of those, which he's got to be likely to win.
Indiana has 57 - the Beeb is describing it as "Cruz's last stand"
Well, both those states have a mixture of WTA statewide and WTA by district so it's not likely that he will just sweep them. In particular, he won't get 172 from CA.
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
Out of interest, because you're a very clever man only interested in facts, has the Sun ever supported the losing side in a GE?
btw the Speccy show last night sounds fun, I would have loved to be sat in between TSE and Nabavi as Hannan was cheered and Umunna and Kendall looked on.
You people have cast aside your true conservative values in the sycophantic defence of one man, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Not a particularly constructive comment for your cause.
But to claim that any one view represents "true conservative values" is just balderdash.
Conservatism encompasses many strains - personally I am a fan of the Whiggish view "reform that ye may preserve" That's very different to the views of Adullamites such as your good self.
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
Out of interest, because you're a very clever man only interested in facts, has the Sun ever supported the losing side in a GE?
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
Out of interest, because you're a very clever man only interested in facts, has the Sun ever supported the losing side in a GE?
I'd guess 1974, once if not twice.
A guess, you, guessing - well who'd have guessed it?
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
Out of interest, because you're a very clever man only interested in facts, has the Sun ever supported the losing side in a GE?
Tantalisingly close. If he continues to overperform like this he'll do it.
It is now likely that he will at least break 1200 I think.
Cali has 172 of those, which he's got to be likely to win.
Indiana has 57 - the Beeb is describing it as "Cruz's last stand"
Sky's funny - about 15 secs of 'Oh, Trump won everything [bugger]' They loved talking him down every other time. I'm saving the inevitable NeverTrump articles in the Times for a laugh later.
Tantalisingly close. If he continues to overperform like this he'll do it.
It is now likely that he will at least break 1200 I think.
Cali has 172 of those, which he's got to be likely to win.
Indiana has 57 - the Beeb is describing it as "Cruz's last stand"
Looks increasingly bleak for anti-trump:
"That presents an uncomfortable reality for anti-Trump forces: they’re attempting to thwart the candidate who is likely to win more Republican primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years, and maybe ever."
The "Sun" was a Labour supporting paper from its birth in late 1964. Backed Wilson in 1966 and in 1970 under the new Murdoch tenure, changed horses for Heath in Feb 74 and then reverted to Wilson in Oct 74 and has backed the winning horse ever since.
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
Out of interest, because you're a very clever man only interested in facts, has the Sun ever supported the losing side in a GE?
I'd guess 1974, once if not twice.
A guess, you, guessing - well who'd have guessed it?
The "Sun" was a Labour supporting paper from its birth in late 1964. Backed Wilson in 1966 and in 1970 under the new Murdoch tenure, changed horses for Heath in Feb 74 and then reverted to Wilson in Oct 74 and has since backed the winning horse ever since.
Conventional commentariat wisdom has it that the EU referendum pits those concerned about economics versus those concerned about immigration. But a quick perusal of the leading intellectual voices supporting Leave shows this is nonsense. Many have long thought the UK outside the EU would not only be more free and democratic, but more prosperous too.
The "Sun" was a Labour supporting paper from its birth in late 1964. Backed Wilson in 1966 and in 1970 under the new Murdoch tenure, changed horses for Heath in Feb 74 and then reverted to Wilson in Oct 74 and has since backed the winning horse ever since.
What has become increasingly clear is that the weird combination of rules, fiddles, unbound delegates, caucuses, super delegates etc etc that form the US nomination process is so far fit from purpose as to be a joke. There were strong suggestions on 538 last night that Cruz's attempt to fiddle delegates in states he had lost had cost him popular support with people, funnily enough, not liking it. It will be interesting to see how this plays in Indiana.
I think the democrats tidied up a bit after similar fiddles by Obama in 2008 but the power of the super delegates is extreme. You either ask the people for their opinion or you don't. Since they are now asked everywhere the answer should be accepted. And the answer on the Republican side is Trump by several million votes.
btw the Speccy show last night sounds fun, I would have loved to be sat in between TSE and Nabavi as Hannan was cheered and Umunna and Kendall looked on.
You people have cast aside your true conservative values in the sycophantic defence of one man, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Not a particularly constructive comment for your cause.
But to claim that any one view represents "true conservative values" is just balderdash.
Conservatism encompasses many strains - personally I am a fan of the Whiggish view "reform that ye may preserve" That's very different to the views of Adullamites such as your good self.
Excellent post - and way over the head of the target
Where do you think he'll ultimately end up, Pulpy?
If he wins Indiana, which he should - 1300ish.
I think the bright sunlit uplands of Kasich/Cruz - KC and the Sunshine Band has ensured that Trump will "Skake His Booty" and ease past 1237 with a little to spare. Their unnatural marriage ("That's the way GOP voters don't like it") played fully into Trump's anti establishment theme tune.
Kasich/Cruz - Truly an odd couple, reminding me of the Ken Clarke/John Redwood dalliance ....
Nigel Farage interviewed by Nick Robinson on R4. As ever a good interviewee, but Robinson had him discomfited twice, once on Suzanne Evans (clearly a lot of bitterness there), and once on 'which other country's trading arrangement with the EU do you want to copy. Farage's point was that we could get a bespoke deal, but he sounded like he was dodging the question. I'd have said 'I'll tell you that when you name another country worth the same to the EU'. Then he'd have turned it back on Robinson.
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Profit is apparently a dirty word for hand-wringers.
Pumping a loss making company for hundreds of millions in dividends while watching the company's pension deficit widen isn't profit. I won't say what I really think to protect Mike from Sir Philip's legal team.
The one obvious value that shrieks out from the heading of this thread is surely Trump for President. Only an 18% chance and Hillary is a 74% chance? I think that is ridiculous.
It points out the many problems that this has caused her dealing with Sanders are not going to go away when dealing with Trump. "Crooked Hillary" is not quite as good as "Lyin' Ted" but he will make it stick and the gloves will be off. Accusations of being in the pocket of the wealthy have not stopped Hillary beating Sanders and they may not stop her beating Trump either but an 18% chance? That has to be value.
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Allegedly taken money out of the BHS pension fund to pay himself a dividend before selling it for £1 to a bunch of conmen.
The dividend was paid over 10 years ago (an aquaintance of mine* organised it and got all his clients' money back).
And it came from the company, not the pension fund. Because it would be illegal to take it from the pension fund.
* (known to many as Wriggly Wigley)
Money that was supposed to plug the pensions deficit, sorry. It may be legally correct, but it is still a scumbag move. You can't tell me it is right that he paid himself hundreds of millions in dividends while the company lost money and the pension deficit widened. I'm hardly a soak the rich lefty, but it's people like Green who give business people a bad name and behaviour like that needs to be punished by the regulator and the money needs to be clawed back.
Shame I missed Mr. Pulpstar's first article (and ensuing discussion) *and* Mr. Royale's post-debate report.
There's been almost nothing about the local elections, yet they can't be far away at all...
I haven't seen one poster in Woking. We've had a few leaflets through the door.
Interestingly in Woking the whole council is up for re-election. There are 10 wards with three councillors in each. Usually they elect one at a time on a rolling four year cycle, but with the whole lot up for election we are in the unusual position (for Woking, anyway) of having multiple candidates from the same party.
Each voter will have up to three votes and it is still first past the post. This slightly concerns me because it puts those parties with fewer candidates than positions to be filled at a potential disadvantage. We have only one Ukip candidate - who I will be voting for - but I'm slightly worried that some people will think they have to use all three votes and won't realize that all votes count as one and they are voting against themselves. It probably won't make any difference as I expect each ward to return either three Tory or three Lib Dems.
What's funny is that it had been proposed for the council to be elected like this every four years rather than electing the council in thirds in three out of every four years. However, one councillor got confused and voted the wrong way to we are going to revert to the old system. Apparently they'll decide the order in which the candidates have to stand for election again based on the number of votes they receive this time. So the candidate that comes third goes first, etc.
It appears the Sun have got it in for Cameron after supporting him last year. Regardless of what some on here think of it its still the widest read paper in the UK.
And almost certainly the most widely read by non-voters.
Out of interest, because you're a very clever man only interested in facts, has the Sun ever supported the losing side in a GE?
On matters American, I caught some coverage of the Cruz-Kasich Pact on Fox News. It wasn't about last night which was clearly going to be Trump's night with the best the other candidates could hope for was some damage limitation.
The point of the Pact was or were Indiana, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. The theory was if they could stop Trump (or slow him down there), then given California would be a likely Trump winner, the Donald would still be short of 1237 - Fox calculated 1202.
The Cruz-Kasich Pact reminds me of the Clarke-Redwood deal during the 1997 Conservative leadership election which was praised by some as daring and audacious and not so favourably viewed by others. I'll leave the Conservatives on here to muse on how well a Clarke leadership with Redwood as Shadow Chancellor would have fared...
The premise of my enemy's enemy being my friend may seem superficially attractive but your supporters won't always see it that way
Nigel Farage interviewed by Nick Robinson on R4. As ever a good interviewee, but Robinson had him discomfited twice, once on Suzanne Evans (clearly a lot of bitterness there), and once on 'which other country's trading arrangement with the EU do you want to copy. Farage's point was that we could get a bespoke deal, but he sounded like he was dodging the question. I'd have said 'I'll tell you that when you name another country worth the same to the EU'. Then he'd have turned it back on Robinson.
Yes agree, not his best. The answer to that question (one I have heard from many Leave friends) is: we don't want a Norway, or an Albania deal, we want a UK deal.
But for some reason Nige couldn't make the slam dunk by saying this. Perhaps down to Nick R as a good interviewer.
It points out the many problems that this has caused her dealing with Sanders are not going to go away when dealing with Trump. "Crooked Hillary" is not quite as good as "Lyin' Ted" but he will make it stick and the gloves will be off. Accusations of being in the pocket of the wealthy have not stopped Hillary beating Sanders and they may not stop her beating Trump either but an 18% chance? That has to be value.
It would be unfortunate if he were able to establish any sort of correlation between donations and her policy actions. I have a feeling we are going to be in for several months of "received X from Y and then voted in favour of Z" press releases from Trump, there is no need for him to prove any sort of causality, just six months of the drip-drip of the appearance of impropriety and being in the pocket of big business is going to be tough going for her to fight.
It points out the many problems that this has caused her dealing with Sanders are not going to go away when dealing with Trump. "Crooked Hillary" is not quite as good as "Lyin' Ted" but he will make it stick and the gloves will be off. Accusations of being in the pocket of the wealthy have not stopped Hillary beating Sanders and they may not stop her beating Trump either but an 18% chance? That has to be value.
It would be unfortunate if he were able to establish any sort of correlation between donations and her policy actions. I have a feeling we are going to be in for several months of "received X from Y and then voted in favour of Z" press releases from Trump, there is no need for him to prove any sort of causality, just six months of the drip-drip of the appearance of impropriety and being in the pocket of big business is going to be tough going for her to fight.
Yes, In the article I linked to Sanders was asked to name one thing that Clinton had voted for in the Senate as a result of a donation. He struggled and she said that was because "there wasn't one". But the perception of the American people that all these rich people don't give all this money to politicians because they are nice is probably correct and a real weak point against a man who is self funding.
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Only someone obscenely rich could utter those words. It says it all in the last sentence. Can you explain how he could give his wife over £400M dividend and have £500M deficit in the pension scheme. How does that seem real if you take your silver spoon out.
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Profit is apparently a dirty word for hand-wringers.
Not at all. I'm sure there are many perfectly well meaning people who would love to give their Monaco based wives a £400,000,000 dividend from one of their failing companies.
a) too thick to understand how the owner's of companies make money for both themselves and the rest of the country
or
b) too conceited to convey this to their readerships
Thoughts?
Owners only make money for other people as & when they are too dim to keep it all for themselves.
Heard of taxes? Salaries?
Right, Morty. Let me imagine you own a company. Would you turn down a tax break? Would you hire an individual (other than one of your mistresses, of course) to do what a robot could do just as well? Of course you wouldn't.
Economics textbooks abstract from crime. The real wortld doesn't. There's no such thing as an honest penny - which is why I felt safe, a while back, in offering you all a five-figure sum for nothing. I knew you'd all be too clever by half and see a catch that wasn't there.
Hey, this is a betting site. I don't expect to find altruism here, and neither do you. But it does exist - elsewhere.
So here's another offer: £1,000 to whoever writes an article for the site denouncing altruism, and another £1,000 for OGH for publishing it.
Each voter will have up to three votes and it is still first past the post. This slightly concerns me because it puts those parties with fewer candidates than positions to be filled at a potential disadvantage.
As part of our general election here next week, there is voting to reelect/replace half the senate, there are 30 candidates for 12 seats, and it is elected using the "plurality-at-large" voting system, effectively the whole country is one giant multi-member constituency, and voters have to select up to 12 candidates, each candidate scores one point for each ballot paper they are selected on, and the 12 candidates with the highest number of points get the gig, it's going to be interesting!
a) too thick to understand how the owner's of companies make money for both themselves and the rest of the country
or
b) too conceited to convey this to their readerships
Thoughts?
Owners make money for themselves , as little as possible for the country and as we see often leave a huge bill for the taxpayers. How can this be legal or how can anyone try to justify it
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Only someone obscenely rich could utter those words. It says it all in the last sentence. Can you explain how he could give his wife over £400M dividend and have £500M deficit in the pension scheme. How does that seem real if you take your silver spoon out.
Easy.
One was 12 years ago when the company was profitable...
The second is after 9 years of 0% interest rates which has destroyed any company with a defined benefits pension scheme. The one thing Gordon Brown successfully did for most people was destroy their pension....
Another day, another failure of the BBC avoiding coverage of Labour's anti-Semitic MP Naz Shah. I remember when Patrick Mercer mentioned other people using the term "black bastard" and it was front page news. Clearly that is a more serious offence than calling for the ethnic cleansing of millions of Jews. The capitulation to Islamic bigotry has already begun, and will only increase as the Muslim population swells.
On matters American, I caught some coverage of the Cruz-Kasich Pact on Fox News. It wasn't about last night which was clearly going to be Trump's night with the best the other candidates could hope for was some damage limitation.
The point of the Pact was or were Indiana, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. The theory was if they could stop Trump (or slow him down there), then given California would be a likely Trump winner, the Donald would still be short of 1237 - Fox calculated 1202.
The Cruz-Kasich Pact reminds me of the Clarke-Redwood deal during the 1997 Conservative leadership election which was praised by some as daring and audacious and not so favourably viewed by others. I'll leave the Conservatives on here to muse on how well a Clarke leadership with Redwood as Shadow Chancellor would have fared...
The premise of my enemy's enemy being my friend may seem superficially attractive but your supporters won't always see it that way
It's a remarkably stupid pact on every level - almost nothing in common between their supporters, and a cosy losers insider stitch up to stop the runaway favourite. I saw a stat somewhere saying only 3% of Cruz/Kasich voters would play their game.
OT. I'd just like to repeat the warning I gave Cameron six years ago when he appointed Philip Green 'Waste Tsar'
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
Can you tell me what he's done wrong?
Only someone obscenely rich could utter those words. It says it all in the last sentence. Can you explain how he could give his wife over £400M dividend and have £500M deficit in the pension scheme. How does that seem real if you take your silver spoon out.
Easy.
One was 12 years ago when the company was profitable...
The second is after 9 years of 0% interest rates which has destroyed any company with a defined benefits pension scheme. The one thing Gordon Brown successfully did for most people was destroy their pension....
It is still unbelievable that you can take £400M out of a company , leaving the pension scheme almost bankrupt. They know that taxpayers will have to take up the slack, in any normal transaction in the real world that would be a crime. How that is legal and they are not forced to payback the money is a disgrace , but I would not expect the Tories to do anything about it other than dole out a few gongs.
a) too thick to understand how the owner's of companies make money for both themselves and the rest of the country
or
b) too conceited to convey this to their readerships
Thoughts?
Owners only make money for other people as & when they are too dim to keep it all for themselves.
Heard of taxes? Salaries?
Right, Morty. Let me imagine you own a company. Would you turn down a tax break? Would you hire an individual (other than one of your mistresses, of course) to do what a robot could do just as well? Of course you wouldn't.
Economics textbooks abstract from crime. The real wortld doesn't. There's no such thing as an honest penny - which is why I felt safe, a while back, in offering you all a five-figure sum for nothing. I knew you'd all be too clever by half and see a catch that wasn't there.
Hey, this is a betting site. I don't expect to find altruism here, and neither do you. But it does exist - elsewhere.
So here's another offer: £1,000 to whoever writes an article for the site denouncing altruism, and another £1,000 for OGH for publishing it.
I do own a company outright.
We have not used several legitimate tax breaks in the past because I was not convinced that they met the smell test. I employ individuals to do jobs that robots can do because care and personal service is more important to me than accuracy. I think it leads to a better customer experience and, put bluntly, it keeps someone else off the dole.
Of course I am in a privileged position because I have 100% of the shares.
Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
Btw if you look on the previous thread there are some interesting comments from Pulpstar about the individual districts (which is where these unbound people come in).
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results
It is now likely that he will at least break 1200 I think.
Indiana has 57 - the Beeb is describing it as "Cruz's last stand"
Sat, May 7 Guam (D) 12 - Closed
Tue, May 10 Nebraska (R) - 36 Closed
Tue, May 10 West Virginia 37 34 Mixed
Tue, May 17 Kentucky (D) 61 - Closed
Tue, May 17 Oregon 73 28 (P) Closed
Tue, May 24 Washington (R)* - 44 (P) Closed
Sat, Jun 4 Virgin Islands Caucus (D) 12 - Open
Sun, Jun 5 Puerto Rico Caucus (D) 67 - Open
Tue, Jun 7 California 546 172 (P) Mixed
Tue, Jun 7 Montana 27 27 (WTA) Open
Tue, Jun 7 New Jersey 142 51 (WTA) Mixed
Tue, Jun 7 New Mexico 43 24 (P) Closed
Tue, Jun 7 North Dakota Caucus (D) 23 - Closed
Tue, Jun 7 South Dakota 25 29 (WTA) Closed
Tue, Jun 14 District of Columbia (D) 46 - Closed
Read more at http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/#8PGGOYs4qpk90h2r.99
Nice article in Sun too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7100715/Margaret-Thatcher-s-economics-guru-says-Brexit-will-leave-families-with-an-extra-40-pounds-a-week.html
You people have cast aside your true conservative values in the sycophantic defence of one man, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
But to claim that any one view represents "true conservative values" is just balderdash.
Conservatism encompasses many strains - personally I am a fan of the Whiggish view "reform that ye may preserve" That's very different to the views of Adullamites such as your good self.
https://m.soundcloud.com/spectator1828/daniel-hannans-speech-in-spectator-brexit-debate
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/live-from-the-london-palladium-the-spectators-brexit-debate/
Good night for Trump. Glad I have some money on Clinton.
'He gives tax avoiding Monaco based asset strippers a bad name'
"That presents an uncomfortable reality for anti-Trump forces: they’re attempting to thwart the candidate who is likely to win more Republican primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years, and maybe ever."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven
Oct 74 - on the fence, IIRC.
Shame I missed Mr. Pulpstar's first article (and ensuing discussion) *and* Mr. Royale's post-debate report.
There's been almost nothing about the local elections, yet they can't be far away at all...
I think the democrats tidied up a bit after similar fiddles by Obama in 2008 but the power of the super delegates is extreme. You either ask the people for their opinion or you don't. Since they are now asked everywhere the answer should be accepted. And the answer on the Republican side is Trump by several million votes.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/27/naz-shah-runs-charity-with-anti-semitic-labour-councillor/
Kasich/Cruz - Truly an odd couple, reminding me of the Ken Clarke/John Redwood dalliance ....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bhs-calls-for-philip-green-to-be-stripped-of-his-knighthood-as-moral-pressure-builds-a7001211.html
I think his floor is now 1200 though. It's hard to see how he drops below that now.
And it came from the company, not the pension fund. Because it would be illegal to take it from the pension fund.
* (known to many as Wriggly Wigley)
Remain: 41% (+3)
Leave: 37% (-2)
Don’t Know 22% (-1)
https://t.co/VkrZ09zKAi
a) too thick to understand how the owner's of companies make money for both themselves and the rest of the country
or
b) too conceited to convey this to their readerships
Thoughts?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/wales-election-labour-down/
This is a very good article about campaign finance and the problems it causes Hillary: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/02/clinton-sanders-and-the-money-question
It points out the many problems that this has caused her dealing with Sanders are not going to go away when dealing with Trump. "Crooked Hillary" is not quite as good as "Lyin' Ted" but he will make it stick and the gloves will be off. Accusations of being in the pocket of the wealthy have not stopped Hillary beating Sanders and they may not stop her beating Trump either but an 18% chance? That has to be value.
Not convinced many people realise this.
Interestingly in Woking the whole council is up for re-election. There are 10 wards with three councillors in each. Usually they elect one at a time on a rolling four year cycle, but with the whole lot up for election we are in the unusual position (for Woking, anyway) of having multiple candidates from the same party.
Each voter will have up to three votes and it is still first past the post. This slightly concerns me because it puts those parties with fewer candidates than positions to be filled at a potential disadvantage. We have only one Ukip candidate - who I will be voting for - but I'm slightly worried that some people will think they have to use all three votes and won't realize that all votes count as one and they are voting against themselves. It probably won't make any difference as I expect each ward to return either three Tory or three Lib Dems.
What's funny is that it had been proposed for the council to be elected like this every four years rather than electing the council in thirds in three out of every four years. However, one councillor got confused and voted the wrong way to we are going to revert to the old system. Apparently they'll decide the order in which the candidates have to stand for election again based on the number of votes they receive this time. So the candidate that comes third goes first, etc.
On matters American, I caught some coverage of the Cruz-Kasich Pact on Fox News. It wasn't about last night which was clearly going to be Trump's night with the best the other candidates could hope for was some damage limitation.
The point of the Pact was or were Indiana, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. The theory was if they could stop Trump (or slow him down there), then given California would be a likely Trump winner, the Donald would still be short of 1237 - Fox calculated 1202.
The Cruz-Kasich Pact reminds me of the Clarke-Redwood deal during the 1997 Conservative leadership election which was praised by some as daring and audacious and not so favourably viewed by others. I'll leave the Conservatives on here to muse on how well a Clarke leadership with Redwood as Shadow Chancellor would have fared...
The premise of my enemy's enemy being my friend may seem superficially attractive but your supporters won't always see it that way
But for some reason Nige couldn't make the slam dunk by saying this. Perhaps down to Nick R as a good interviewer.
Economics textbooks abstract from crime. The real wortld doesn't. There's no such thing as an honest penny - which is why I felt safe, a while back, in offering you all a five-figure sum for nothing. I knew you'd all be too clever by half and see a catch that wasn't there.
Hey, this is a betting site. I don't expect to find altruism here, and neither do you. But it does exist - elsewhere.
So here's another offer: £1,000 to whoever writes an article for the site denouncing altruism, and another £1,000 for OGH for publishing it.
Thank god for all those costly and often inefficient public servants who entrepreneured their way out of a depression.
Oh, wait....
In response, Vote Leave opts for the conspiracy theory:
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/725216257411264512
One was 12 years ago when the company was profitable...
The second is after 9 years of 0% interest rates which has destroyed any company with a defined benefits pension scheme. The one thing Gordon Brown successfully did for most people was destroy their pension....
How that is legal and they are not forced to payback the money is a disgrace , but I would not expect the Tories to do anything about it other than dole out a few gongs.
We have not used several legitimate tax breaks in the past because I was not convinced that they met the smell test. I employ individuals to do jobs that robots can do because care and personal service is more important to me than accuracy. I think it leads to a better customer experience and, put bluntly, it keeps someone else off the dole.
Of course I am in a privileged position because I have 100% of the shares.