Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP soar 4 points in this week’s Ashcroft national poll
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP soar 4 points in this week’s Ashcroft national poll
After a period in which UKIP has been edging down across the polls there’ll be some relief at Farage Towers that today’s Lord Ashcroft poll has them at 18% – up 4 on a week ago.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anything at all?
Has Farage said or done anything to get national media attention?
Farage doesn't have to. Half the headlines in the tabloids seem to shout 'vote UKIP?'
If anyone wants to bet that if UKIP get 18% they will get zero seats, I will happily have four figures at Even money
if they get less than 18% BET VOID
*In fact I will be generous and make it if UKIP get 15%
The underlying picture is quite healthy for UKIP and more stable than it may appear.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fort-nepeans-sergeant-john-purdue-fired-first-shot-of-world-war-i-20140803-3d2aw.html
The first British casualties appear to have been members of the crew of HMS Amphion, who died when their ship hit a mine by the minelayer Konigin Luise on August 5th 1914.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/flccaslt.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11010610/Australian-accused-of-abandoning-surrogate-baby-previously-convicted-for-child-sex-offences.html
BTW Sunil: I responded to you on the previous thread.
The last day of the war makes for interesting reading as well.
I bet a lot on First Goalscorer... I look at 3 or 4 seasons form with a slight weighting towards the most recent/current
If a guy was playing as a second striker for the past three seasons and scoring 18% of his teams goals, but now was playing as a lone striker and had scored 40% of his teams goals this season it would be insane for me to use the 18% as a figure which he will regress to eventually, because the rules have changed.
That's why I think firms who base UKIPs current/future polling on 2010 results are wrong. They still have the 3% as meaning something.
That must also mean they overstate the other parties
Then again it could be me that is wrong
One thing that is self evident... is that the underlying population can't be both on 12% and 18% at the same time.
To late, it has already descended into the mire, and the sacrifices they made were forgotten by politicians almost immediately.
http://damianpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/93781753719/hostages-rods-and-wreaths
"That brings us to today’s incident with the wreaths at the Cenotaph. If I had to take a wild guess, I’d suggest that whoever did the ‘advance’ for David Cameron - with the experience of many Remembrance Sundays in Whitehall - asked what was happening with the messages for the wreaths. Having been told he’d be provided with one saying ‘From the Prime Minister’ or shown what it looked like, I’m guessing they said: ‘Don’t worry, he’ll write a personal message; we’ll let you have it in the next hour’. Does that mean the PM is obsessed with image and photo ops? Not really, it just means he’s got a team around him doing their jobs.*"
Using that model to deal with UKIP vote share is as dated as wearing flares and having a mullet
A far greater chance than Camborne & Redruth - which though it might go certainly won't be UKIP's first seat...
If UKIP are still on 9% with ICM you can consider this analysis crap but I'd be surprised if they didn't "bounce" back to ~ 12% with ICM in their next poll.
I suggested a bet at 6/4, TGOHF said "yer on £50?", and now is trying to say im on at Evens!
Who is willy waving?
Mr. Ghost I know I have asked this before and if you replied then I apologise for missing it, but why the choice of Flashman at the Charge for your avatar and why that edition?
If you didn't understand the bet, or don't fancy it, I will let you off, but don't try coming it, have some humility
Of course, to avoid any unseemly bickering simply follow my exciting F1 tips [although of course this did lead to a loss last year].
When you see Van Persie 10/1 first goalscorer you don't assume that is 1/10 - well not in most bookmakers anyway - apart from Sams. As this is now more boring than the how much tax Lord Goldsmith will pay after he dies (answer £0) bet I am out.
His advice hasn’t worked out very well this year, either! To be fair, for the first time!
How is it my fault???!
Anyway, the main thing that comes out of it all is your statement "Dave=PM=referendum" is nonsense and that's all I wanted to prove anyway
I know all about the scare stories, but would, indeed could, the Germans in 1914-5 have launched an invasion of UK?
People taking the view that point scoring over this is poor form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War
....... the Nationalists’ greatest deficiencies in the referendum campaign: so blinkered are they by the ferocity of their own nationalism that they cannot see that their opponents are not themselves nationalist in outlook. This is not “Scotnat v Britnat”, a battle of competing nationalisms. It is Nationalism v Unionism, a battle between those who say “a nation cannot fully exist until it is a state” and those who say “don’t be so daft”. The argument is not Scotland versus Britain — are you Scottish or British. The argument is Scotland separated from Britain or Scotland within a United Kingdom: Scotland alone or Scotland as part of a family of great British nations.
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/the-definitive-unionist/
If this stupid story gets any widespread public attention at all (which I'm doubtful of), it might help Ed if anything. It reminds me of when the press started pathetically attacking Gordon Brown for writing to parents of dead soldiers in "messy" handwriting, which ended up backfiring and increasing sympathy for Brown because it was so obviously unfair.
Swingback...crossover...inevitable innit, always happens, the fairies say so.
Tick tock...
If this is a foretaste of their Smear Ed election campaign strategy, Labour are laughing.
Britain might have held on due to the Royal Navy and hoped that Russia would defeat Germany however the Russians would have been defeated even more easier than normal.
So probably Britain would have negotiated peace by 1916 (due to the absence of fanatics on both sides).
France would have lost the rest of Lorraine, Morocco, their share of the suez canal and a slice of central africa to Germany, perhaps if Italy joined Germany after the french defeat they would get the rest of Savoy and Tunisia.
Belgium would be split into Flanders and Wallonne, with Wallone given to Germany.
Serbia would be partitioned between Austria and Bulgaria.
Russia would have lost Poland and the baltics which would have become German satellites.
Britain would probably lose almost nothing as the only non defeated allied power.
But most importantly the empires of europe would still exist though reformed, as the SPD had control of the german parliament, Karl I would become emperor of Austria in 1916 and the Tsar would be forced by his generals to give power to the russian parliament.
However defeat would lead France into another commune, Britain would still see a big hit on the liberals for losing the war (Lloyd George could have salvaged it) and fascism would never be invented as the war would be shorter and Mussolini would still be a socialist.
The Germans could never have invaded, HMS Audacious would have sent them scuttling back to port. ;-)
Continental bully pisses off all it's neighbours, can't actually run an empre and finds the costs are greater than the benefits, hasn't got naval superiority so can't dictate trade and goes to war with a rejuvenated Russia again only this time it loses.
Plus ca change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Audacious_(1912)
Shhhh Sunil, that was a secret!
Well at least to the British public, the rest of the world knew.
Remember, careless talk costs political careers.
No WW1, no Versailles Treaty, no Bolshevik Revolution, no Communism, no Naziism, no Holocaust, no ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, no ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
Ah, counterfactual history, an area on which anyone can opine with but a smattering of knowledge.
Had the Central Powers prevailed as early as the autumn of 1914 - in other words, IF Schlieffen had gone as believed and hadn't been compromised by the withdrawal of key troops to the east to beat back a half-hearted Russian invasion of East Prussia (the heartland in every sense of pre-1945 Germany) which was itself caused by a faster Russian mobilisation than the Germans had envisaged...
Yes, we'd have seen German economic control established over Belgium, Holland and much of Continental Europe (no change there some might say). MIlitarily, where would a defeated France have gone - into isolationism or rabid nationalism ? I expect there'd be a ton of recriminations hurled at Britain and that would be that for the Entente.
The British aren't used to losing wars and a surrender/armistice would be tantamoutnt to the biggest miltary disaster since Cornwallis suurendered at Yorktown but as others have said, the Empire itself would have been largely spared. I suspect in the ATL 1920s there might have been a rapprochement between Berlin and London based on the common aims of keeping a vengeful France and an unstable Russia in check.
As to whether Karl I could have kept the nationalist tensions under control indefinitely, history suggests not and the long-term internal cohesion of Austria-Hungary without fundamental reform seems dubious at best.
The key question is whether the autarchies could survive indefinitely - again, history suggests not. Even if the Kaiser remains on the throne in the ATL until 1940, his more reformist son might have tried to ride the reformist tiger but that rarely ends well either and one might imagine Berlin as a battlefield in 1945 with German fighting German rather than German fighting Russian. Without the fear of Bolshevism, liberal-reformist politics will be the shape of the future but as to whether Imperial Germany could transform without much bloodshed (as in 1989) or in the fire of Revolition and chaos, that's a tough one.
For instance I keep a daily record of maps and loses in the Russian-Ukranian war.
I expected the russians to be defeated by August 1st, I was wrong but not by very as the ukranians have cutoff Donetsk and any day now they will capture it.
Luhansk was cutoff too but the russians broke the siege yesterday.
The russians continue to be outnumbered by 10 to1, outmaneuvered and having catastrophic losses for 2 months now.
I estimate that 1/7th of the ukrainian airforce and about 3% of ukrainian ground forces have been destroyed vs 4% of the russian ground forces.
Or? They fail to conquer Russia, the uprising still takes place, and the Russians make socialism work without falling into dictatorship?
Who knows?
@Tim_B - San Francisco, just landed