politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft poll on Boris and Uxbridge
Lord Ashcroft has polled the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, about Boris, and it generally makes for great reading for the Mayor of London. The phone poll was conducted this week.
» show previous quotes First (semi) acknowledgement that your fraudulent independence campaign has hit the buffers. I don't know whether to be pleased or feel slightly sad.
Truth will out. And the endgame is that Britain will be independent and whole -not balkanised by self-serving EU sycophants like Salmond stoking division for their own gain.
You are not too bright are you. You swallowed your student union card again, next you will be telling me you are manning the barricades.
» show previous quotes First (semi) acknowledgement that your fraudulent independence campaign has hit the buffers. I don't know whether to be pleased or feel slightly sad.
Truth will out. And the endgame is that Britain will be independent and whole -not balkanised by self-serving EU sycophants like Salmond stoking division for their own gain.
You are not too bright are you. You swallowed your student union card again, next you will be telling me you are manning the barricades.
I'm not a student. I work for the Scotch Whisky industry actually. And I would suspect I do a lot more for Scotland's economy on a daily basis than you do.
TBH, if one looks at the results in Henley Boris doesn’t seem to be that much of an “extra” vote winner in practice.
Mr Cole, In places like Henley the Conservative vote is pretty much maxed out - it doesn't matter who the candidate is. You could stick up a corpse or a latter-day Churchill as the Conservative candidate and the number of votes received would still be in the same range.
If democracy is to survive, let alone thrive, in this country then the nonsense of safe seats has to be tackled. STV or PR squared or something to allow the effectively disenfranchised majority is needed and quite soon.
TBH, if one looks at the results in Henley Boris doesn’t seem to be that much of an “extra” vote winner in practice.
Mr Cole, In places like Henley the Conservative vote is pretty much maxed out - it doesn't matter who the candidate is. You could stick up a corpse or a latter-day Churchill as the Conservative candidate and the number of votes received would still be in the same range.
If democracy is to survive, let alone thrive, in this country then the nonsense of safe seats has to be tackled. STV or PR squared or something to allow the effectively disenfranchised majority is needed and quite soon.
The Henley Tory vote has fluctuated a bit over the years, but I was looking at the change a new candidate made. In general terms, though, I agree.
» show previous quotes First (semi) acknowledgement that your fraudulent independence campaign has hit the buffers. I don't know whether to be pleased or feel slightly sad.
Truth will out. And the endgame is that Britain will be independent and whole -not balkanised by self-serving EU sycophants like Salmond stoking division for their own gain.
You are not too bright are you. You swallowed your student union card again, next you will be telling me you are manning the barricades.
I'm not a student. I work for the Scotch Whisky industry actually. And I would suspect I do a lot more for Scotland's economy on a daily basis than you do.
So you are very stupid in making such assumptions. I however will refrain from juvenile willy waving
» show previous quotes First (semi) acknowledgement that your fraudulent independence campaign has hit the buffers. I don't know whether to be pleased or feel slightly sad.
Truth will out. And the endgame is that Britain will be independent and whole -not balkanised by self-serving EU sycophants like Salmond stoking division for their own gain.
You are not too bright are you. You swallowed your student union card again, next you will be telling me you are manning the barricades.
I'm not a student. I work for the Scotch Whisky industry actually. And I would suspect I do a lot more for Scotland's economy on a daily basis than you do.
Steven Pinker @sapinker · 7m Steven Pinker: 10 'grammar rules' it's OK to break (sometimes). 1st extract from The Sense of Style. http://gu.com/p/4vmze/tw via @guardian
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
It looks like, at last to me and a few others in London and the SouthEast, that autumn has started early and unless we see a re-emergence of summer in the next week or two, this autumn may be the harbinger of a long winter.
"Britain sits back and does nothing at all." As recent news stories have shown, it is quite possible for those who feel really strongly to travel to the Middle East and volunteer to fight.
"Britain sits back and does nothing at all." As recent news stories have shown, it is quite possible for those who feel really strongly to travel to the Middle East and volunteer to fight.
Are you going to volunteer for the IDF or Barzani's Kurdish army?
"Britain sits back and does nothing at all." As recent news stories have shown, it is quite possible for those who feel really strongly to travel to the Middle East and volunteer to fight.
Are you going to volunteer for the IDF or Barzani's Kurdish army?
I think you have rather missed the point of my comment.
"Britain sits back and does nothing at all." As recent news stories have shown, it is quite possible for those who feel really strongly to travel to the Middle East and volunteer to fight.
Are you going to volunteer for the IDF or Barzani's Kurdish army?
I think you have rather missed the point of my comment.
Oh! Your going for the other side then. Got your AK47 and machette?
"Britain sits back and does nothing at all." As recent news stories have shown, it is quite possible for those who feel really strongly to travel to the Middle East and volunteer to fight.
Are you going to volunteer for the IDF or Barzani's Kurdish army?
I think you have rather missed the point of my comment.
Oh! Your going for the other side then. Got your AK47 and machette?
"Britain sits back and does nothing at all." As recent news stories have shown, it is quite possible for those who feel really strongly to travel to the Middle East and volunteer to fight.
Are you going to volunteer for the IDF or Barzani's Kurdish army?
I think you have rather missed the point of my comment.
Oh! Your going for the other side then. Got your AK47 and machette?
Blimey!
It's that yellow icon of your that gives the game away. You just can't make up your mind. You must be a L/Dem.
Did something weird happen to the comments and an entire conversation disappear?
Yes, there's an embargo on that poll. Can't discuss it until midnight.
Given it's a "Yes Scotland" commissioned poll, I would wait until we saw ALL the questions asked.....
Q1 Do you approve of Tories eating Scottish babies? Q2 Do you agree that the NHS should only be available to rich English people? Q3 Do you agree "Scotland should be an independent country, keep the pound, the BBC and EU membership?"
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
Weirdly enough, Blair would be better. He did have the balls, even if he went insane.
It struck me yesterday that the world would be such a better place if we could reverse the chronology of Bush/Blair and Obama/Cameron.
Obama/Cameron would NOT have invaded Iraq. Bush/Blair WOULD have taken on ISIS.
You're probably correct there. However, if Blair was still in charge we may well be preoccupied with invading Iran at the moment.
Did something weird happen to the comments and an entire conversation disappear?
Yes, there's an embargo on that poll. Can't discuss it until midnight.
Given it's a "Yes Scotland" commissioned poll, I would wait until we saw ALL the questions asked.....
Q1 Do you approve of Tories eating Scottish babies? Q2 Do you agree that the NHS should only be available to rich English people? Q3 Do you agree "Scotland should be an independent country, keep the pound, the BBC and EU membership?"
Typical unionist , trumpet all your own sponsored polls regardless of questions, Westminster spends £3M of our money and only give to Bitter Together but hey one YES poll and it must be dodgy.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
Weirdly enough, Blair would be better. He did have the balls, even if he went insane.
It struck me yesterday that the world would be such a better place if we could reverse the chronology of Bush/Blair and Obama/Cameron.
Obama/Cameron would NOT have invaded Iraq. Bush/Blair WOULD have taken on ISIS.
You're probably correct there. However, if Blair was still in charge we may well be preoccupied with invading Iran at the moment.
I guess you could say if Obama/Cameron were in charge instead of Bush/Blair a decade ago, there wouldn't be such a mess for them to have to sort out
Also we cant know that Cameron wouldn't have invaded Iraq ten years ago, and cant judge based on his current non intervention as that is influenced by Blair's mistake
I cannot believe anyone can take Boris seriously. I wonder what the polling would be if say Harry Hill was his opponent.
I can understand why people like him, as he not a typical politician. But that does not mean I would want him as my MP or even a member of a government.
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
I guess you could say if Obama/Cameron were in charge instead of Bush/Blair a decade ago, there wouldn't be such a mess for them to have to sort out
Also we cant know that Cameron wouldn't have invaded Iraq ten years ago, and cant judge based on his current non intervention as that is influenced by Blair's mistake
I know it's a very conjectural counterfactual, verging on a fairy tale.
However Obama would definitely not have gone into Iraq, unlike Bush - and it's hardly conceivable the Brits would have done it themselves, is it??
So if Obama were prez in 2003 - no Iraq.
Now let's say ISIS had arisen anyway, even without Iraq, and Bush was in power now? I am sure Bush would attack them, and Blair would join in,
Sadly this is fantasy history, and we have two of the most mediocre US presidents in power, at precisely the wrong time, when all their faults are exposed, and none of their virtues.
According to David Icke ( no I don't take him seriously), ISIS is part of a conspiracy to bring about WW3, which will end up with the middle east being controlled by western powers. The US will allow ISIS to take over most of Iraq and Syria, but once they threaten Israel/Jordan, the US/NATO will intervene. There is also some talk about the US wanting to drag Iran into this, to provoke China and Russia, but I cannot see Iran getting involved, apart from funding/arming others.
Apparently ISIS are not just after setting up a new country, but they want to attack Israel.
Personally, I think this is just jihadists who started out wanting to get rid of Assad, who have moved onto taking over weak parts of Iraq. They may say they want to take over a large part of the region, but I cannot see that being allowed.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
Weirdly enough, Blair would be better. He did have the balls, even if he went insane.
It struck me yesterday that the world would be such a better place if we could reverse the chronology of Bush/Blair and Obama/Cameron.
Obama/Cameron would NOT have invaded Iraq. Bush/Blair WOULD have taken on ISIS.
You're probably correct there. However, if Blair was still in charge we may well be preoccupied with invading Iran at the moment.
I guess you could say if Obama/Cameron were in charge instead of Bush/Blair a decade ago, there wouldn't be such a mess for them to have to sort out
Also we cant know that Cameron wouldn't have invaded Iraq ten years ago, and cant judge based on his current non intervention as that is influenced by Blair's mistake
I know it's a very conjectural counterfactual, verging on a fairy tale.
However Obama would definitely not have gone into Iraq, unlike Bush - and it's hardly conceivable the Brits would have done it themselves, is it??
So if Obama were prez in 2003 - no Iraq.
Now let's say ISIS had arisen anyway, even without Iraq, and Bush was in power now? I am sure Bush would attack them, and Blair would join in,
Sadly this is fantasy history, and we have two of the most mediocre US presidents in power, at precisely the wrong time, when all their faults are exposed, and none of their virtues.
Oh I pretty much agree with you.. I was just considering other angles.. something about this website makes people find arguments to statements they agree with, and I am obviously no different!
Sadly this is fantasy history, and we have two of the most mediocre US presidents in power, at precisely the wrong time, when all their faults are exposed, and none of their virtues.
It's a tragedy of history, but until 9/11 Bush was looking to be a fairly enlightened Republican moderate - exactly the sort that the party needs.
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Something else about this website is that people like to say I told you so...
Well I told several people on here, including OGH in person who seemed to not believe me, that I knew for certain that Farage was going to stand in Thanet South or North, probably South, in March.. 9/4 & 10/1 were on offer then, I hope they filled their boots.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
Weirdly enough, Blair would be better. He did have the balls, even if he went insane.
It struck me yesterday that the world would be such a better place if we could reverse the chronology of Bush/Blair and Obama/Cameron.
Obama/Cameron would NOT have invaded Iraq. Bush/Blair WOULD have taken on ISIS.
"Weirdly enough, Blair would be better."
There's the kit aspect as well though. The forces have been greatly reduced since 2003 so is what's left capable of doing what a Blair would want and would a Blair forcing action without the necessary kit cause a different kind of mess?
Not likely we will see Tuba McDougall of BT tweeting about today's upcoming Panelbase Indy poll then. Imagine the Bitter Together lot will be keeping their heads down , be hard to spin that one as good.
sean thomas knox @thomasknox 1h .... "The mother said: My daughters were calling on people to kill them, but no one wanted to do that. So they jumped from the mountain"
If it goes on like this I reckon 50 plus seats for UKIP re GE2015.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
Weirdly enough, Blair would be better. He did have the balls, even if he went insane.
It struck me yesterday that the world would be such a better place if we could reverse the chronology of Bush/Blair and Obama/Cameron.
Obama/Cameron would NOT have invaded Iraq. Bush/Blair WOULD have taken on ISIS.
You're probably correct there. However, if Blair was still in charge we may well be preoccupied with invading Iran at the moment.
I guess you could say if Obama/Cameron were in charge instead of Bush/Blair a decade ago, there wouldn't be such a mess for them to have to sort out
Also we cant know that Cameron wouldn't have invaded Iraq ten years ago, and cant judge based on his current non intervention as that is influenced by Blair's mistake
I know it's a very conjectural counterfactual, verging on a fairy tale.
However Obama would definitely not have gone into Iraq, unlike Bush - and it's hardly conceivable the Brits would have done it themselves, is it??
So if Obama were prez in 2003 - no Iraq.
Now let's say ISIS had arisen anyway, even without Iraq, and Bush was in power now? I am sure Bush would attack them, and Blair would join in,
Sadly this is fantasy history, and we have two of the most mediocre US presidents in power, at precisely the wrong time, when all their faults are exposed, and none of their virtues.
Yes fantasy history following 10 years of UK involvement with troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. These being operations which have hardly united the country. Hardly a good encouragement to put boots back in. And following all this we have parliament, which was not lied to by Cameron (unlike Blair and Campbell), and which refused even to think about air strikes on Syria. Cameron and the govt are bringing humanitarian aid and using reconnaissance planes. Where is the desire from the country for boots on the ground?
The lesson of this shambles in Western foreign policy is fairly straightforward:
If you want to deal with a situation you intervene early and firmly.
There are no real excuses and no overall intelligence failure that somehow no-one saw this coming. Western governments knew what was happening. Don't believe the odd nbews report coming out where the White House anonymously suggests they are investigating an intelligence failure'. The failure was a willingness to do something for the last few years.
As it is, if Obama has the nuts for it, and its hard to say if he does, this is going to need sustained cross border action to shrink ISIS down militarily and a huge amount of political action to reduce the oxygen of suppression that assisted them.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
That's a silly comment. The govt are delivering significant humanitarian aid. The govt are taking part and supporting American action. I do not see much that we can add to American air power. And in terms of other intervention I do not see that we could add much to the 101st Airborne.
The lesson of this shambles in Western foreign policy is fairly straightforward:
If you want to deal with a situation you intervene early and firmly.
There are no real excuses and no overall intelligence failure that somehow no-one saw this coming. Western governments knew what was happening. Don't believe the odd nbews report coming out where the White House anonymously suggests they are investigating an intelligence failure'. The failure was a willingness to do something for the last few years.
As it is, if Obama has the nuts for it, and its hard to say if he does, this is going to need sustained cross border action to shrink ISIS down militarily and a huge amount of political action to reduce the oxygen of suppression that assisted them.
Come on #Y0kel, You know that Obama has no balls for sustained fight. He is a hit and run president with no thought for the future of America, let alone the west.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
That's a silly comment. The govt are delivering significant humanitarian aid. The govt are taking part and supporting American action. I do not see much that we can add to American air power. And in terms of other intervention I do not see that we could add much to the 101st Airborne.
You are aware there are British officials, both civilian and military, in Kurdistan?
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
"They may say they want to take over a large part of the region, but I cannot see that being allowed."
Not allowed? Who do you think is going to stop them?
The US will bomb them and not bother too much about civilan casualties, as they will blame it on ISIS.
A remarkable post on so many levels. Thank you.
Well you did ask. Rationale is that IF ISIS managed to take over say most of Iraq and Syria, were threatening Israel and Jordan, the US would be forced to act. I suspect that they would say that they would take precautions to avoid civilan casualties, but given the nature of the these terrorist armies, it might be very difficult. I cannot see the US putting 'boots on the group' beyond special forces target spotters.
According to reports from Channel 4, Obama's blithe decision to say "the siege of Sinjar is over" gave ISIS the green light to attack the Yazidi again.
Yesterday they slaughtered 100 Yazidi men in one hour, in one village, and enslaved 300 women and children.
In total, according to Yazidi leaders, 350 Yazidi men were murdered yesterday, and 1000 women and kids hauled off to be raped and enslaved.
The genocide, in other words, continues. And Obama's stupid, catastrophic incompetence has facilitated the killing. And Britain sits back and does nothing at all.
We will remember these days with shame.
Cameron is utterly hopeless and devoid of any humanity in his inaction. But who would be any better?
That's a silly comment. The govt are delivering significant humanitarian aid. The govt are taking part and supporting American action. I do not see much that we can add to American air power. And in terms of other intervention I do not see that we could add much to the 101st Airborne.
You are aware there are British officials, both civilian and military, in Kurdistan?
We could have the massed band of the Brigade of Guards out there, it wouldn't invalidate Mr. Path's comment. UK armed forces are now so small as to be insignificant. The entire combat force of the RAF is about equal to two US carrier air wings.
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
Personally, I think this is just jihadists who started out wanting to get rid of Assad, who have moved onto taking over weak parts of Iraq. They may say they want to take over a large part of the region, but I cannot see that being allowed.
(blockquotes were messed up so hope this is your quote)
From my reading around - could be wrong
Isis were originally AQ in Iraq and after being booted out of Iraq into Syria they were pretty dead until they were rebooted to fight Assad (by one of the gulf states imo). At the same time Maliki was annoying the Sunni tribes in Iraq who eventually rebelled (initially in Fallujah back in January) and so Isis crossed the border to help out. The apparent blitzkrieg effect in the media being the result of the Sunni rebellion spreading rather than an actual Isis blitz. The confusing bit is who is running things now in the Sunni tribes bit of Iraq: Isis, the tribes or a bit of both?
Isis still have their capital in Raqqa in Syria rather than move to Mosul so I assume Raqqa is where they're strongest so my guess is the Sunni tribes are mostly in control in Iraq with Isis running around on the edges of Sunni territory looking for infidels to kill.
(*Sunni tribes including the more urban ex-Baathist types and general bystanders)
If UK had the right kit I think we could probably "do something" around those edges with very few boots on the ground but I dunno if we have. I'd guess not but not sure.
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
sean thomas knox @thomasknox 1h .... "The mother said: My daughters were calling on people to kill them, but no one wanted to do that. So they jumped from the mountain"
If it goes on like this I reckon 50 plus seats for UKIP re GE2015.
I thought UKIP had dropped its ban the burka policy (and did not plan to ban the Hijab), and has been unusually silent on the middle east.
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
I think the Observer are suffering a case of post hoc ergo propter hocitis
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
Comments
Luckyguy1983 said:
» show previous quotes
First (semi) acknowledgement that your fraudulent independence campaign has hit the buffers. I don't know whether to be pleased or feel slightly sad.
Truth will out. And the endgame is that Britain will be independent and whole -not balkanised by self-serving EU sycophants like Salmond stoking division for their own gain.
You are not too bright are you. You swallowed your student union card again, next you will be telling me you are manning the barricades.
I've reinvesting my winnings.
On the following accumulator, Everton, Hull, Spurs, Stoke and Sunderland all to win today.
£10 gets you around £1,300
Flightpath saying UKIP smashed in Knights Hill is like saying Labour smashed in Hans Town.
Just looked in at the Death Match. That Andy Cooke is a clever fellow, you'll never make money betting against him at Diplomacy.
Which reminds me, TSE you need to give some attention to your Diplomacy situation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11038623/Double-poll-boost-for-Boris-Johnsons-attempts-to-return-to-Parliament.html
Obv didnt fancy the draw
If democracy is to survive, let alone thrive, in this country then the nonsense of safe seats has to be tackled. STV or PR squared or something to allow the effectively disenfranchised majority is needed and quite soon.
It just did!
And I agree with your second paragraph. Heartily!
or Nick Griffin or the Acourt Bros?
Steven Pinker: 10 'grammar rules' it's OK to break (sometimes). 1st extract from The Sense of Style. http://gu.com/p/4vmze/tw via @guardian
I did mention Kevin Doherty. I couldn't stop myself.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/05/nazi-tattoo-ukip-candidate-in-mystery-powder-naked-photoshoot/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11038521/Man-dies-as-35-people-found-screaming-and-banging-in-shipping-container-at-Tilbury-Docks.html
Why is it David Cameron's job to protect them?
Meanwhile England 260 for 5
Heads up pol peeps. We have an ICM #indyref poll for you in this weekend's @scotonsunday.
Q1 Do you approve of Tories eating Scottish babies?
Q2 Do you agree that the NHS should only be available to rich English people?
Q3 Do you agree "Scotland should be an independent country, keep the pound, the BBC and EU membership?"
Also we cant know that Cameron wouldn't have invaded Iraq ten years ago, and cant judge based on his current non intervention as that is influenced by Blair's mistake
I can understand why people like him, as he not a typical politician. But that does not mean I would want him as my MP or even a member of a government.
Ukip have taken a shock six-percentage-point leap in the polls following confirmation that Nigel Farage is intending to stand in a Tory seat in Kent. An Opinium/Observer poll has Farage's party on 21%. It appears that Ukip has taken support from both the Tories and Labour.
Ed Miliband's party is down three points, leaving it on 32%, and the Conservatives are down four points to 28%. The Liberal Democrats have enjoyed a small rise of three points to 10%.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/16/ukip-surge-popularity-farage-thanet
However Obama would definitely not have gone into Iraq, unlike Bush - and it's hardly conceivable the Brits would have done it themselves, is it??
So if Obama were prez in 2003 - no Iraq.
Now let's say ISIS had arisen anyway, even without Iraq, and Bush was in power now? I am sure Bush would attack them, and Blair would join in,
Sadly this is fantasy history, and we have two of the most mediocre US presidents in power, at precisely the wrong time, when all their faults are exposed, and none of their virtues.
According to David Icke ( no I don't take him seriously), ISIS is part of a conspiracy to bring about WW3, which will end up with the middle east being controlled by western powers. The US will allow ISIS to take over most of Iraq and Syria, but once they threaten Israel/Jordan, the US/NATO will intervene. There is also some talk about the US wanting to drag Iran into this, to provoke China and Russia, but I cannot see Iran getting involved, apart from funding/arming others.
Apparently ISIS are not just after setting up a new country, but they want to attack Israel.
Personally, I think this is just jihadists who started out wanting to get rid of Assad, who have moved onto taking over weak parts of Iraq. They may say they want to take over a large part of the region, but I cannot see that being allowed.
Well I told several people on here, including OGH in person who seemed to not believe me, that I knew for certain that Farage was going to stand in Thanet South or North, probably South, in March.. 9/4 & 10/1 were on offer then, I hope they filled their boots.
Mine barely got wet!
"They may say they want to take over a large part of the region, but I cannot see that being allowed."
Not allowed? Who do you think is going to stop them?
There's the kit aspect as well though. The forces have been greatly reduced since 2003 so is what's left capable of doing what a Blair would want and would a Blair forcing action without the necessary kit cause a different kind of mess?
Hard to say.
Senior officials at the Ministry of Peshmerga in Northern Iraq say a further 312 Yazidi men have been killed by Islamic State militants.
David Jones @DavidJo52951945 6m
John Lewis to start selling Hijab for muslims girls at school! the muslim takeover continues http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726390/John-Lewiss-new-line-hijabs-wear-school-Department-store-signs-contract-schools-London-Liverpool-offer-Conservative-Islamic-clothing.html …
sean thomas knox @thomasknox 1h
.... "The mother said: My daughters were calling on people to kill them, but no one wanted to do that. So they jumped from the mountain"
If it goes on like this I reckon 50 plus seats for UKIP re GE2015.
If you want to deal with a situation you intervene early and firmly.
There are no real excuses and no overall intelligence failure that somehow no-one saw this coming. Western governments knew what was happening. Don't believe the odd nbews report coming out where the White House anonymously suggests they are investigating an intelligence failure'. The failure was a willingness to do something for the last few years.
As it is, if Obama has the nuts for it, and its hard to say if he does, this is going to need sustained cross border action to shrink ISIS down militarily and a huge amount of political action to reduce the oxygen of suppression that assisted them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Some wise fellow tipped Crystal Palace to beat Arsenal at 11/1, he also tipped Swansea to beat Manchester United at 8/1
From my reading around - could be wrong
Isis were originally AQ in Iraq and after being booted out of Iraq into Syria they were pretty dead until they were rebooted to fight Assad (by one of the gulf states imo). At the same time Maliki was annoying the Sunni tribes in Iraq who eventually rebelled (initially in Fallujah back in January) and so Isis crossed the border to help out. The apparent blitzkrieg effect in the media being the result of the Sunni rebellion spreading rather than an actual Isis blitz. The confusing bit is who is running things now in the Sunni tribes bit of Iraq: Isis, the tribes or a bit of both?
Isis still have their capital in Raqqa in Syria rather than move to Mosul so I assume Raqqa is where they're strongest so my guess is the Sunni tribes are mostly in control in Iraq with Isis running around on the edges of Sunni territory looking for infidels to kill.
(*Sunni tribes including the more urban ex-Baathist types and general bystanders)
If UK had the right kit I think we could probably "do something" around those edges with very few boots on the ground but I dunno if we have. I'd guess not but not sure.
Have any polls had CON+Lab as low as 60 post 2010?
60 was achieved three times, twice with Ashcroft in May and June this year, and the ComRes phone poll of July this year
59 has been achieved four times, once with Ashcroft in June this year, and 3 times with Survation, twice in July 2013, and once in May 2013
I think that should be UKIPs target, to get the big two down to 61-62 combined
Chelsea away next week...
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
Regret not cashing out on Crystal Palace.
I'll work out which ones they are on Monday, tonight is a bit hectic tonight.
Definitely feels like autumnal weather is upon us. Better than the stifling humidity and damned wasps of summer.