Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though it could be after Easter before Pennsylvani

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 19 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though it could be after Easter before Pennsylvania punters get paid

The above from the Wikipedia page on last Tuesday’s Pennsylvania special election sets out the result as it stands at the moment but those who have bet on It are going to have to wait some time before this has been resolved.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,262
    1st like Lamb (or Saccone).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,262
    Buffer 1st in case Vanilla eats my homework.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Drat! The curse of the new thread.

    Anyway, fpt - in case Mr Meeks is still on

    Dearie me: a lot of very bad tempered exchanges this evening now that we are back on Brexit. It almost makes me long for some more Russian poisoning just so that we can argue about hats. :)

    A genuine question to Mr Meeks: I understand your arguments about the anger felt by those who may/will suffer as a result of a policy ("mad hobbyhorse" in your words) they not only do not support but violently oppose.

    But could not this equally apply the other way around i.e. there are clearly people who felt that their jobs / wages / way of life were threatened by a policy (EU membership / FoM) that they did not support / opposed?

    It is not all that obvious to me that one group's anger is more worthy of notice than another's. Put it another way - indeed as I put it in this header - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/12/uniting-the-country/ - both the benefits and costs of being in the EU and of Brexit have not or are not likely to be fairly shared. (And I think they ought to be.)

    You are complaining that those who may lose their jobs because of Brexit are entitled to complain, especially if they did not support the policy. But that must also apply, surely, in reverse i.e. those who lost out - or felt that they did - because of EU membership are equally entitled to complain. The issue now is that there were more of them than anyone realised hence the position the country now finds itself in.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,262
    Looking good...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629
    edited March 19
    5th like democracy
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    Damn you computer glitches, I get it from KCD, and even PB!
    kle4 said:

    I'm sure the concerns raised would have been outlined even if the outcome had been marginally the other way. Just kidding, I am sure the Democrats would have stepped up in that situation with their own concerns.

    kle4 said:

    Ah, Rick Santorum, what is he up to thesedays? I must be wrong, because it's how they operate over there, but it feels like it must be hard to move on from frontline politics to other things given the USA persists in calling people Senator, or Governor, or whatever, long after they have left office.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    Hope we get a thread on Cambridge Analytica sometime in the near future.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    IIRC the BBC report on the Democrat candidate suggested one reason they did so well was he was very carefully selected, and in particular they didn't ask the rank and file via a primary. There's a lesson in that.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,476
    edited March 19
    Facebook added that Aleksandr Kogan, the creator of the personality app from which the Facebook data had been harvested, had also agreed to be audited. However, Mr Wylie, who made the claims about the way the data was gathered and used, had declined.

    Wonder why Mr Wylie doesn't want to be audited?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    edited March 19
    [Deleted]
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,524
    edited March 19
    Not sure if posted earlier but Welsh Political Barometer out today.

    Swing of 1% from Lab to Con since GE (Lab -2.9, Con -0.6) - but no seats would change hands.

    Still, another encouraging poll for Con.

    https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2018/03/19/1893/

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 19

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Could it be affected by multiple memeber wards - most London wards elect 3 councillors.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 19
    Highest vote method, Greater London 2014:

    Lab: 940,393 (37.3%)
    Con: 662,974 (26.3%)
    LD: 267,859 (10.6%)
    Green: 245,201 (9.7%)
    UKIP: 235,645 (9.4%)
    Ind: 31,186 (1.2%)
    Others:135,355 (5.4%)
    Total: 2,518,613
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 19

    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
    It's using highest vote method which I think is the most commonly used way of doing it. Each voter in London usually gets 3 votes for 3 candidates (if they wish to use them all). The 108,774 figure is from adding up all 3 candidates.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    edited March 19
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
    It's using highest vote method which I think is the most commonly used way of doing it. Each voter in London usually gets 3 votes for 3 candidates (if they wish to use them all). The 108,774 figure is from adding up all 3 candidates.

    Okey dokey, I understand now.
    Labourites disproportionately live in multimember constituencies and/or use all three votes.

    The UKPollingReport changes are therefore broadly correct.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675
    edited March 19
    On topic, I understood that this election used voting machines. If so, how can you have a re-count?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    AndyJS said:

    Highest vote method, Greater London 2014:

    Lab: 940,393 (37.3%)
    Con: 662,974 (26.3%)
    LD: 267,859 (10.6%)
    Green: 245,201 (9.7%)
    UKIP: 235,645 (9.4%)
    Ind: 31,186 (1.2%)
    Others:135,355 (5.4%)
    Total: 2,518,613

    Those kippers may need to find someone else to vote for fairly quickly. It will be a little ironic if it is UKIP that gets obliterated by the Rotherham grooming case:

    https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/ukip-faces-being-wound-up-in-a-fortnight-after-judge-orders-payment-of-ps175000-libel-case-costs-mr-justice-warby_uk_5ab00c20e4b0697dfe198013/?__twitter_impression=true
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
    It's using highest vote method which I think is the most commonly used way of doing it. Each voter in London usually gets 3 votes for 3 candidates (if they wish to use them all). The 108,774 figure is from adding up all 3 candidates.

    Okey dokey, I understand now.
    Labourites disproportionately live in multimember constituencies and/or use all three votes.

    The UKPollingReport changes are therefore broadly correct.
    Ah, I think it's some second preference voting going on. The "other" voters put their man top, and Labour second and third more than Tories.
  • How's Roy Moore's appeal against the Alabama result going?
  • On topic, I understood that this election used voting machines. If so, how can you have a re-count?

    By counting the absentee ballots and reviewing the rejected ballots.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    How's Roy Moore's appeal against the Alabama result going?

    Still dead.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194
    Page 29 of the spreadsheet shows the overall London from 1994 onwards.

    Comparing them to the national results shows how London has trended towards Labour. In 1994 London was slightly more Conservative than the country as a whole and since 2002 there has been a big trend to Labour:

    1994 Con +2%
    1998 Lab +4%
    2002 Lab +1%
    2006 Lab +6%
    2010 Lab +9%
    2014 Lab +10%

    Of course London has been the epicentre of falling levels of home ownership - something traditionally associated with Conservative support.

    Interesting to see that a Conservative lead in vote share across London in 2002 still left Labour having the most councillors.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 19

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
    It's using highest vote method which I think is the most commonly used way of doing it. Each voter in London usually gets 3 votes for 3 candidates (if they wish to use them all). The 108,774 figure is from adding up all 3 candidates.

    Okey dokey, I understand now.
    Labourites disproportionately live in multimember constituencies and/or use all three votes.

    The UKPollingReport changes are therefore broadly correct.
    No, all but one or two of the 624 wards in London are three member wards. One of the two member wards is in Orpington which is practically the safest Tory area. The highest vote method doesn't usually discriminate against any particular party.

    One explanation may be that in 2014 Labour supporters were usually voting for all 3 Labour candidates, whereas often Tories may have been voting twice for the Tory candidate and once for the UKIP candidate who were usually running just one candidate in most wards.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
    It's using highest vote method which I think is the most commonly used way of doing it. Each voter in London usually gets 3 votes for 3 candidates (if they wish to use them all). The 108,774 figure is from adding up all 3 candidates.

    Okey dokey, I understand now.
    Labourites disproportionately live in multimember constituencies and/or use all three votes.

    The UKPollingReport changes are therefore broadly correct.
    No, all but one or two of the 624 wards in London are three member wards. One of the two member wards is in Orpington which is practically the safest Tory area, so it isn't discriminating against any party in the way you suggest.
    Yeah, noted Andy.

    I think it's a second pref thing. More left-wing independents and parties that stood less than three candidates per ward.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191

    Page 29 of the spreadsheet shows the overall London from 1994 onwards.

    Comparing them to the national results shows how London has trended towards Labour. In 1994 London was slightly more Conservative than the country as a whole and since 2002 there has been a big trend to Labour:

    1994 Con +2%
    1998 Lab +4%
    2002 Lab +1%
    2006 Lab +6%
    2010 Lab +9%
    2014 Lab +10%

    Of course London has been the epicentre of falling levels of home ownership - something traditionally associated with Conservative support.

    Interesting to see that a Conservative lead in vote share across London in 2002 still left Labour having the most councillors.

    It's also got bigger whilst the boundaries haven't changed.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028
    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    edited March 19

    Facebook added that Aleksandr Kogan, the creator of the personality app from which the Facebook data had been harvested, had also agreed to be audited. However, Mr Wylie, who made the claims about the way the data was gathered and used, had declined.

    Wonder why Mr Wylie doesn't want to be audited?

    Crap. Deleted.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675
    FF43 said:

    Facebook added that Aleksandr Kogan, the creator of the personality app from which the Facebook data had been harvested, had also agreed to be audited. However, Mr Wylie, who made the claims about the way the data was gathered and used, had declined.

    Wonder why Mr Wylie doesn't want to be audited?

    Crap. Deleted.
    Your original response looked fair to me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Maybe there really are a bunch of concerns and irregularities with their elections, but most of the time they don't care because it is so one sided, whereas we generally think ours are irregularity free? IDK, although I am astonished to discover the US regularly has uncontested seats at Congressional level. as Pennsylvania's 18th apparently has been several times.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,193
    dixiedean said:


    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.

    Stonking majority. I still feel foolish for backing the other horse in that race.
  • dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
    Off the top of my head smallest by election victory in the UK

    50 odd in Berwick Upon Tweed in the 1970s
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.
  • 57 Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1973 Gained by the Liberal Party
    62 Walthamstow West by-election, 1967 Gained by the Conservatives
    100 West Derbyshire by-election, 1986 Held by the Conservatives
    205 Leyton by-election, 1965 Gained by the Conservatives
    219 Torrington by-election, 1958 Gained by the Liberals
    220 Central Norfolk by-election, 1962 Held by the Conservatives
    264 Ashfield by-election, 1977 Gained by the Conservatives
    289 Birmingham Northfield by-election, 1982 Gained by Labour
    293 Dunbartonshire West by-election, 1950 Held by Labour
    359 Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 Gained by the Conservatives
    365 Glasgow East by-election, 2008 Gained by the SNP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Smallest_majorities
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191

    57 Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1973 Gained by the Liberal Party
    62 Walthamstow West by-election, 1967 Gained by the Conservatives
    100 West Derbyshire by-election, 1986 Held by the Conservatives
    205 Leyton by-election, 1965 Gained by the Conservatives
    219 Torrington by-election, 1958 Gained by the Liberals
    220 Central Norfolk by-election, 1962 Held by the Conservatives
    264 Ashfield by-election, 1977 Gained by the Conservatives
    289 Birmingham Northfield by-election, 1982 Gained by Labour
    293 Dunbartonshire West by-election, 1950 Held by Labour
    359 Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 Gained by the Conservatives
    365 Glasgow East by-election, 2008 Gained by the SNP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Smallest_majorities

    Thanks TSE

    Nothing obviously challengeable
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    edited March 19

    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
    Why would it being a by-election make a difference? Same issue whether at by-election or GE surely?

    Some interesting accounts from literal tied votes in the US, they seem to love the minutiae of electoral processes over there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

    If memory serves Fermanagh and South Tyrone faced a challenge on a majority of 4 votes to SF in 2010, but, as wiki puts it 'However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld'.

    I do feel sorry for anyone who loses so minutely though. Poor poor LDs in Fife.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
    Why would it being a by-election make a difference?

    Some interesting accounts from literal tied votes in the US, they seem to love the minutiae of electoral processes over there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results
    By-elections (or special elections) are about momentum, it makes far more sense to challenge
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited March 19

    57 Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1973 Gained by the Liberal Party
    62 Walthamstow West by-election, 1967 Gained by the Conservatives
    100 West Derbyshire by-election, 1986 Held by the Conservatives
    205 Leyton by-election, 1965 Gained by the Conservatives
    219 Torrington by-election, 1958 Gained by the Liberals
    220 Central Norfolk by-election, 1962 Held by the Conservatives
    264 Ashfield by-election, 1977 Gained by the Conservatives
    289 Birmingham Northfield by-election, 1982 Gained by Labour
    293 Dunbartonshire West by-election, 1950 Held by Labour
    359 Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 Gained by the Conservatives
    365 Glasgow East by-election, 2008 Gained by the SNP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Smallest_majorities

    Thanks TSE

    Nothing obviously challengeable
    I think the reason most results (bethey by elections or general elections) is that the parties they'll get pummelled in the re-run as in Winchester 1997 as the voters take a dim view of it.

    Plus the marked register helps a lot.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 1,973
    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    Since the news was in the weekend papers, the Information Commissioner seems to have been asleep at the wheel.

    Trouble is, I’m not sure we even have the right legislative framework to deal with this sort of thing. In an ideal world, Facebook would be slapped with the mother of all fines, and CA shit down.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    It's part of the current Republican - and especially Trump - modus operandi to spread FUD. Exaggerated claims about voting irregularities are consistently a part of that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028

    57 Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1973 Gained by the Liberal Party
    62 Walthamstow West by-election, 1967 Gained by the Conservatives
    100 West Derbyshire by-election, 1986 Held by the Conservatives
    205 Leyton by-election, 1965 Gained by the Conservatives
    219 Torrington by-election, 1958 Gained by the Liberals
    220 Central Norfolk by-election, 1962 Held by the Conservatives
    264 Ashfield by-election, 1977 Gained by the Conservatives
    289 Birmingham Northfield by-election, 1982 Gained by Labour
    293 Dunbartonshire West by-election, 1950 Held by Labour
    359 Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 Gained by the Conservatives
    365 Glasgow East by-election, 2008 Gained by the SNP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Smallest_majorities

    Thanks TSE

    Nothing obviously challengeable
    Although the 57 vote margin in Berwick was also a 0.2% margin of victory.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
    Why would it being a by-election make a difference? Same issue whether at by-election or GE surely?

    Some interesting accounts from literal tied votes in the US, they seem to love the minutiae of electoral processes over there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

    If memory serves Fermanagh and South Tyrone faced a challenge on a majority of 4 votes to SF in 2010, but, as wiki puts it 'However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld'.

    I do feel sorry for anyone who loses so minutely though. Poor poor LDs in Fife.
    Putin's latest doesn't make it on the list then?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    Since the news was in the weekend papers, the Information Commissioner seems to have been asleep at the wheel.

    Trouble is, I’m not sure we even have the right legislative framework to deal with this sort of thing. In an ideal world, Facebook would be slapped with the mother of all fines, and CA shit down.
    A typo I can approve of.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,254
    As I mentioned earlier, fishing has a place in the British psyche far beyond its economic importance. Rees-Mogg and these other rotters know exactly what they're doing: today was supposed to be Theresa's big EU triumph and they're making it all about fish and belittling it. What a nasty, disloyal, petulant bunch of spoilsports they really are.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,804
    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    Since the news was in the weekend papers, the Information Commissioner seems to have been asleep at the wheel.

    Trouble is, I’m not sure we even have the right legislative framework to deal with this sort of thing. In an ideal world, Facebook would be slapped with the mother of all fines, and CA shit down.
    A typo I can approve of.
    +1!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,191
    dixiedean said:

    57 Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1973 Gained by the Liberal Party
    62 Walthamstow West by-election, 1967 Gained by the Conservatives
    100 West Derbyshire by-election, 1986 Held by the Conservatives
    205 Leyton by-election, 1965 Gained by the Conservatives
    219 Torrington by-election, 1958 Gained by the Liberals
    220 Central Norfolk by-election, 1962 Held by the Conservatives
    264 Ashfield by-election, 1977 Gained by the Conservatives
    289 Birmingham Northfield by-election, 1982 Gained by Labour
    293 Dunbartonshire West by-election, 1950 Held by Labour
    359 Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 Gained by the Conservatives
    365 Glasgow East by-election, 2008 Gained by the SNP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Smallest_majorities

    Thanks TSE

    Nothing obviously challengeable
    Although the 57 vote margin in Berwick was also a 0.2% margin of victory.
    Alan Beith! Learn something new every day.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited March 19
    As someone who has been to a few counts I have to say there's a certain bonhomie between the candidates/parties/activists even in close contests that doesn't appear to happen in America.

    I remember giggling/chatting with Lab/LD/Greens/Kippers about why votes get rejected/accepted, and why a flaccid penis isn't a clear preference for a candidate whereas an erect penis is.

    The only incidents I can recall was when the BNP kicked off about now sharing the platform with the Muslim candidates in the locals and a rather persistent Kipper who was quite adamant that 3 votes for him that had been rejected (because they had signed their name/address on the ballot paper) should be counted.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,136
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
    Why would it being a by-election make a difference? Same issue whether at by-election or GE surely?

    Some interesting accounts from literal tied votes in the US, they seem to love the minutiae of electoral processes over there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

    If memory serves Fermanagh and South Tyrone faced a challenge on a majority of 4 votes to SF in 2010, but, as wiki puts it 'However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld'.

    I do feel sorry for anyone who loses so minutely though. Poor poor LDs in Fife.
    Isn't it better to lose by so small a margin? It must feel much worse to be beaten out of sight or lose one's deposit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    As I mentioned earlier, fishing has a place in the British psyche far beyond its economic importance. Rees-Mogg and these other rotters know exactly what they're doing: today was supposed to be Theresa's big EU triumph and they're making it all about fish and belittling it. What a nasty, disloyal, petulant bunch of spoilsports they really are.
    I'm just surprised that Guido Fawkes is coming across as measured and reasonable by comparison.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    edited March 19
    The Information Commissioner requested access on March 7th... and gave them until today before warning them she'd seek a warrant... tomorrow.

    Mueller she is not.

    (edit - She is clearly a qualified lady:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Denham
    but there seems to be an urgent need for a rather more aggressive investigative arm for egregious cases like this... and probably a great deal more funding.)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629
    edited March 19

    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    and CA shit down.
    Allo Allo You are officer Crabtree and i claim my prooze
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,028

    dixiedean said:

    57 Berwick-upon-Tweed by-election, 1973 Gained by the Liberal Party
    62 Walthamstow West by-election, 1967 Gained by the Conservatives
    100 West Derbyshire by-election, 1986 Held by the Conservatives
    205 Leyton by-election, 1965 Gained by the Conservatives
    219 Torrington by-election, 1958 Gained by the Liberals
    220 Central Norfolk by-election, 1962 Held by the Conservatives
    264 Ashfield by-election, 1977 Gained by the Conservatives
    289 Birmingham Northfield by-election, 1982 Gained by Labour
    293 Dunbartonshire West by-election, 1950 Held by Labour
    359 Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 Gained by the Conservatives
    365 Glasgow East by-election, 2008 Gained by the SNP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Smallest_majorities

    Thanks TSE

    Nothing obviously challengeable
    Although the 57 vote margin in Berwick was also a 0.2% margin of victory.
    Alan Beith! Learn something new every day.
    Indeed. And he went on to be a genuinely popular local MP. The constituency went back to its natural Tory as soon as he retired.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited March 19

    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    and CA shit down.
    You are officer Crabtree and i claim my prooze
    I was pissing by the door and I heard two shats.

    These days when I speak French I sound like Officer Crabtree.

    Fun fact, Officer Crabtree was modelled on Ted Heath who once gave a speech in French with heavy English accent.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    US Senate now going after Cambridge Analytica.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    As I mentioned earlier, fishing has a place in the British psyche far beyond its economic importance. Rees-Mogg and these other rotters know exactly what they're doing: today was supposed to be Theresa's big EU triumph and they're making it all about fish and belittling it. What a nasty, disloyal, petulant bunch of spoilsports they really are.
    Yes, ridiculous that such floundering around could knock Mrs May off her perch....

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050
    Will Geldof show up again ?
    And most importantly
    What will this do to his Betfair price o_O
  • Nigelb said:

    The Information Commissioner requested access on March 7th... and gave them until today before warning them she'd seek a warrant... tomorrow.

    Mueller she is not.

    (edit - She is clearly a qualified lady:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Denham
    but there seems to be an urgent need for a rather more aggressive investigative arm for egregious cases like this... and probably a great deal more funding.)

    She's Canadian, it explains it all.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Will Geldof show up again ?
    And most importantly
    What will this do to his Betfair price o_O
    The more pertinent question is will Graham Brady's postperson get a hernia in the next few days.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629

    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    and CA shit down.
    You are officer Crabtree and i claim my prooze
    I was pissing by the door and I heard two shats.

    These days when I speak French I sound like Officer Crabtree.

    Fun fact, Officer Crabtree was modelled on Ted Heath who once gave a speech in French with heavy English accent.
    Mikes away soon

    There is obviously no piss for the wicked.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    US Senate now going after Cambridge Analytica.

    Aleksandr Kogan, aka Dr. Spectre...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    What is it about the US and constant whinging and complaining about close results for weeks, or even months?
    Didn't we manage to declare Fife NE on election night on a majority of 2, and several others fewer than 100 margin.
    And this result makes absolutely no difference to the political control of the House.

    Have we had a by-election that close?
    Why would it being a by-election make a difference? Same issue whether at by-election or GE surely?

    Some interesting accounts from literal tied votes in the US, they seem to love the minutiae of electoral processes over there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results

    If memory serves Fermanagh and South Tyrone faced a challenge on a majority of 4 votes to SF in 2010, but, as wiki puts it 'However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld'.

    I do feel sorry for anyone who loses so minutely though. Poor poor LDs in Fife.
    Isn't it better to lose by so small a margin? It must feel much worse to be beaten out of sight or lose one's deposit.
    I've not stood for election but if you're in a no hoper of a seat I'd have thought losing by a large margin does not hurt so much, and if you can even cut the scale of the margin (say from 20,000 to 10,000) you can point to what an achievement you had. Or maybe if you lose a seat you had held by a large margin you can attribute it to a large degree in being caught by the tidal wave of support (or lack thereof) like many LDs in 2015.

    But to come agonisingly close to winning and failing? When if you squeak it you could have hopes of a first time incumbency bonus, of winning over the people so much that it is safe for your party for years to come? It feels like that would be rough.

    It might be somebodies only shot at a winnable seat, and if others succeeded in others seats where you failed, perhaps overturning tougher odds, you might be blamed.
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 361

    As I mentioned earlier, fishing has a place in the British psyche far beyond its economic importance. Rees-Mogg and these other rotters know exactly what they're doing: today was supposed to be Theresa's big EU triumph and they're making it all about fish and belittling it. What a nasty, disloyal, petulant bunch of spoilsports they really are.
    Not sure about that comment and I live only a few miles from what was , indeed still is, despite the fleet being largely Spanish owned, the most important fishing town In Wales.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    Facebook seem to be determined to Ratner themselves.
  • AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cambridge Analytica and Facebook appear effectively to have stuck two fingers up at the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

    Why she didn't apply for a warrant earlier is a question which ought to be answered. The opportunity for the alleged ratfuckers to cover their tracks should not have been given.

    These massive tech companies have got to be broken up. They're too powerful as things stand.
    and CA shit down.
    You are officer Crabtree and i claim my prooze
    I was pissing by the door and I heard two shats.

    These days when I speak French I sound like Officer Crabtree.

    Fun fact, Officer Crabtree was modelled on Ted Heath who once gave a speech in French with heavy English accent.
    Mikes away soon

    There is obviously no piss for the wicked.
    Mike's holiday clashes with the world cup, I'll be able to put my feet up safe in the knowledge nothing major will happen.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    Nigelb said:

    The Information Commissioner requested access on March 7th... and gave them until today before warning them she'd seek a warrant... tomorrow.

    Mueller she is not.

    (edit - She is clearly a qualified lady:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Denham
    but there seems to be an urgent need for a rather more aggressive investigative arm for egregious cases like this... and probably a great deal more funding.)

    She's Canadian, it explains it all.
    Weren't you planning to move there ?

    To avoid competition ?
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,125
    The Cambridge Analytica situation is noteworthy not just for what was done, the Facebook data harvesting being just one course on a very dodgy menu. Its also going to be important in terms of who was involved and how.

    The focus may be around the US elections but there a few notable UK figures who have been part of this whole game.

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 685
    edited March 19

    As someone who has been to a few counts I have to say there's a certain bonhomie between the candidates/parties/activists even in close contests that doesn't appear to happen in America.

    I remember giggling/chatting with Lab/LD/Greens/Kippers about why votes get rejected/accepted, and why a flaccid penis isn't a clear preference for a candidate whereas an erect penis is.

    The only incidents I can recall was when the BNP kicked off about now sharing the platform with the Muslim candidates in the locals and a rather persistent Kipper who was quite adamant that 3 votes for him that had been rejected (because they had signed their name/address on the ballot paper)

    There are no counts in the British sense here. Each polling station counts its own results and phones them into the local Board of Elections, usually at county level. Each campaign has their own election night gathering, so there’s no place to gather with their oppos on the other side
    like there is at the count in Blighty.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    FPT

    https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/borough-council-election-results-2014/London-Borough-Council-Elections-2014.pdf

    Page xvi (page 18 f teh PDF) gives Labour 2,626,540 of 6,103,629 which is 43%

    On the next page it gives them 37.4%

    What am I missing?

    Most London wards have 3 councillors so there's no simple way of calculating percentage. You can use the top vote method or the average vote method, or add up all the votes for all the candidates for each party.
    OK, let's run with that.

    Your spreadsheet (thanks) thinks the Tories got 38,286 in Barnet. The link says 108,774.

    Is that because your spreadsheet counts voters and not votes?
    It's using highest vote method which I think is the most commonly used way of doing it. Each voter in London usually gets 3 votes for 3 candidates (if they wish to use them all). The 108,774 figure is from adding up all 3 candidates.

    Okey dokey, I understand now.
    Labourites disproportionately live in multimember constituencies and/or use all three votes.

    The UKPollingReport changes are therefore broadly correct.
    No, all but one or two of the 624 wards in London are three member wards. One of the two member wards is in Orpington which is practically the safest Tory area. The highest vote method doesn't usually discriminate against any particular party.

    One explanation may be that in 2014 Labour supporters were usually voting for all 3 Labour candidates, whereas often Tories may have been voting twice for the Tory candidate and once for the UKIP candidate who were usually running just one candidate in most wards.
    While not disagreeing with your point can I pedantically point out there are now quite a few two (or I think even one) member wards in London.

    Aside from Addington and Fieldway in Croydon, both K&C and Tower Hamlets were redrawn with a variety of ward sizes.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    FPT @Cyclefree my comments were directly in relation to a poll finding that half of Conservative voters thought that Brexit should proceed without further reconsideration even if it threatened jobs and living standards in Britain. They are willing to immiserate Britain and drag everyone down with them.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,738
    Farage and Hoey should join him along with Bob Geldof and his millionaire chums and we can have The Battle Of The Thames - Part Two - This time its serious! :D
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Information Commissioner requested access on March 7th... and gave them until today before warning them she'd seek a warrant... tomorrow.

    Mueller she is not.

    (edit - She is clearly a qualified lady:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Denham
    but there seems to be an urgent need for a rather more aggressive investigative arm for egregious cases like this... and probably a great deal more funding.)

    She's Canadian, it explains it all.
    Weren't you planning to move there ?

    To avoid competition ?
    I'm moving to Iceland, their President wants to ban pineapple on pizza.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 19
    rpjs said:

    As someone who has been to a few counts I have to say there's a certain bonhomie between the candidates/parties/activists even in close contests that doesn't appear to happen in America.

    I remember giggling/chatting with Lab/LD/Greens/Kippers about why votes get rejected/accepted, and why a flaccid penis isn't a clear preference for a candidate whereas an erect penis is.

    The only incidents I can recall was when the BNP kicked off about now sharing the platform with the Muslim candidates in the locals and a rather persistent Kipper who was quite adamant that 3 votes for him that had been rejected (because they had signed their name/address on the ballot paper)

    There are no counts in the British sense here. Each polling station counts its own results and phones them into the local Board of Elections, usually at county level. Each campaign has their own election night gathering, so there’s no place to gather with their oppos on the other side
    like there is at the count in Blighty.
    No-one actually declares the result in the United States either do they, it's left to the media companies. An exception to that was Florida in 2000 where the Secretary of State for Florida ended up annoucing the final result a few weeks after the election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    As someone who has been to a few counts I have to say there's a certain bonhomie between the candidates/parties/activists even in close contests that doesn't appear to happen in America.

    I remember giggling/chatting with Lab/LD/Greens/Kippers about why votes get rejected/accepted, and why a flaccid penis isn't a clear preference for a candidate whereas an erect penis is.

    The only incidents I can recall was when the BNP kicked off about now sharing the platform with the Muslim candidates in the locals and a rather persistent Kipper who was quite adamant that 3 votes for him that had been rejected (because they had signed their name/address on the ballot paper)

    People do seem generally fairly jolly at counts in my experience (while doing counting). Unless a campaign's been really personally bitter it feels like any further hassle and negativity can probably wait, and everyone should be able to just relax and chat with the only other people who know what they've been through in the preceding weeks and months.

    It was awkward at the last count I attended though, as the wrong winner was announced, and gave a very surprised victory speech, and later everyone had to be called back to the stage.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    Back on the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Every serious commentator realises a 20 month "transition" won't be nearly enough time to negotiate a new treaty but there is no mechanism in the draft agreement to allow the transition.to be extended. The UK apparently asked for a flexible arrangement but the EU refused (so far). In principle any extension would require a new treaty as the Article 50 process will be spent by the completion of the transition. As a "mixed" treaty this would probably require full.ratification by member state parliaments including the notorious Wollonia. Expect a long shopping list of demands from member states.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Information Commissioner requested access on March 7th... and gave them until today before warning them she'd seek a warrant... tomorrow.

    Mueller she is not.

    (edit - She is clearly a qualified lady:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Denham
    but there seems to be an urgent need for a rather more aggressive investigative arm for egregious cases like this... and probably a great deal more funding.)

    She's Canadian, it explains it all.
    Weren't you planning to move there ?

    To avoid competition ?
    I'm moving to Iceland, their President wants to ban pineapple on pizza.
    Pinapple pizzas readily available in Iceland: :wink:

    http://groceries.iceland.co.uk/iceland-ham-and-pineapple-thin-pizza-367g/p/50760
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    GIN1138 said:

    Farage and Hoey should join him along with Bob Geldof and his millionaire chums and we can have The Battle Of The Thames - Part Two - This time its serious! :D
    Maybe they could throw flounders and herrings at each other. It would make great TV:

    Catch Of The Day
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629
    Nigelb said:

    As I mentioned earlier, fishing has a place in the British psyche far beyond its economic importance. Rees-Mogg and these other rotters know exactly what they're doing: today was supposed to be Theresa's big EU triumph and they're making it all about fish and belittling it. What a nasty, disloyal, petulant bunch of spoilsports they really are.
    Yes, ridiculous that such floundering around could knock Mrs May off her perch....

    Its a good step forward though apart from the fish.

    and the concession on EU citizens during transition

    Oh and the NI Border

    But apart from that

    Oh and the single market and customs union albeit while losing its role in any decision-making institutions.

    and the fact that people like IDS say “There does seem to be a real concern … It appears that at least through the implementation period nothing will change and I think that will be a concern and the government clearly has to deal with that because a lot of MPs are very uneasy about that right now

    But apart from that!!
  • AndyJS said:

    Hope we get a thread on Cambridge Analytica sometime in the near future.

    If anyone wants to write a thread on it we'll consider it.

    I'm not sure I'm qualified to write a thread on it.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806
    Ultimately people may spout off about the transition deal but what really matters to them is the final terms post transition. Everything else is just timing.

    On the lack of challenges to U.K. election results - that’s easy isn’t it? Secretly most candidates want to lose...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675

    Nigelb said:

    As I mentioned earlier, fishing has a place in the British psyche far beyond its economic importance. Rees-Mogg and these other rotters know exactly what they're doing: today was supposed to be Theresa's big EU triumph and they're making it all about fish and belittling it. What a nasty, disloyal, petulant bunch of spoilsports they really are.
    Yes, ridiculous that such floundering around could knock Mrs May off her perch....

    Its a good step forward though apart from the fish.

    and the concession on EU citizens during transition

    Oh and the NI Border

    But apart from that

    Oh and the single market and customs union albeit while losing its role in any decision-making institutions.

    and the fact that people like IDS say “There does seem to be a real concern … It appears that at least through the implementation period nothing will change and I think that will be a concern and the government clearly has to deal with that because a lot of MPs are very uneasy about that right now

    But apart from that!!
    BINO point in bothering at all soon!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Information Commissioner requested access on March 7th... and gave them until today before warning them she'd seek a warrant... tomorrow.

    Mueller she is not.

    (edit - She is clearly a qualified lady:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Denham
    but there seems to be an urgent need for a rather more aggressive investigative arm for egregious cases like this... and probably a great deal more funding.)

    She's Canadian, it explains it all.
    Weren't you planning to move there ?

    To avoid competition ?
    I'm moving to Iceland, their President wants to ban pineapple on pizza.
    Pinapple pizzas readily available in Iceland: :wink:

    http://groceries.iceland.co.uk/iceland-ham-and-pineapple-thin-pizza-367g/p/50760
    Don't go there, the Iceland vs Iceland legal dispute is presumably still ongoing...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/18/microsoft-v-mikerowesoft-iceland-v-iceland-five-strangest-trademark/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    Facebook Chief Security Officer to leave the company.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html

    Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 1,973
    It would be good to see Facebook go down.
    Like Uber, they seem to have an entrenched corporate culture of scumbaggery.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713

    FPT @Cyclefree my comments were directly in relation to a poll finding that half of Conservative voters thought that Brexit should proceed without further reconsideration even if it threatened jobs and living standards in Britain. They are willing to immiserate Britain and drag everyone down with them.

    Thank you. An odd position for a party normally keen on economic competence to adopt, I grant you.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    It would be good to see Facebook go down.
    Like Uber, they seem to have an entrenched corporate culture of scumbaggery.
    I'm inclined to dislike them as overly large and with a mission seemingly all about monitoring and controlling as many things as possible in what just seems an insidious fashion to me, but there's no real prospect of the big companies being split up in future, I presume? Too convenient for too many I'd have thought.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    It would be good to see Facebook go down.
    Like Uber, they seem to have an entrenched corporate culture of scumbaggery.
    I hadn't looked at their stock price for quite a while and was staggered to see their market cap was up to $500bn. They have a long way to fall. Silicon Valley is due another big crash anyway.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    It would be good to see Facebook go down.
    Like Uber, they seem to have an entrenched corporate culture of scumbaggery.
    Doubt they'll disappear - but at least this ought to be the end any presidential ambitions Zuckerberg might have had.

    Enough billionaires, already.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    AndyJS said:

    Hope we get a thread on Cambridge Analytica sometime in the near future.

    If anyone wants to write a thread on it we'll consider it.

    I'm not sure I'm qualified to write a thread on it.
    If qualification was needed to write on topics, wouldn't most pundits (not on here of course) be out of business?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,675
    edited March 19

    AndyJS said:

    Hope we get a thread on Cambridge Analytica sometime in the near future.

    If anyone wants to write a thread on it we'll consider it.

    I'm not sure I'm qualified to write a thread on it.
    But if you do decide to write a thread on it, be prepared to lose your Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram accounts:

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 685

    As someone who has been to a few counts [...]

    I remember giggling/chatting with Lab/LD/Greens/Kippers about why votes get rejected/accepted, and why a flaccid penis isn't a clear preference for a candidate whereas an erect penis is.

    A Russian friend of ours sent us a photo of their ballot paper from inside the voting booth. They bravely, or recklessly, your choice, spoilt their ballot by writing “should be in gaol” next to Putin’s name.

    I said to my wife that, based on my election agent experience, if I were Vladimir Vladimirovitch’s agent inspecting the dubious ballots I’d be arguing it to count for my candidate on the grounds that only that candidate’s line was marked.
  • kle4 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Hope we get a thread on Cambridge Analytica sometime in the near future.

    If anyone wants to write a thread on it we'll consider it.

    I'm not sure I'm qualified to write a thread on it.
    If qualification was needed to write on topics, wouldn't most pundits (not on here of course) be out of business?
    I can use technology really well but I'd struggle how to explain it works under the hood.
This discussion has been closed.