Oh good grief. The one policy they've come up with which was even close to being an asset for them.
I don't think the implementation of an energy price freeze, when the price of oil is falling would be that popular. I'm sure Ed will meddle with the energy companies another way.
What manichean nonsense. The vast majority of this country realises there is positive immigration and negative immigration. It's only the imbecilic Labour party that believes all immigration is good, even if it's homeless Romanians or Bengali peasants.
I don't know what "manichean" means,[2] but I do know what "nonsense" means and I can assure you it is not nonsense. I contend that refusing to give a number as a threshold[1] and resorting to euphemisms ("controlled", "managed", "within (unspecified) numeric limits") is a method whereby a pro-immigration stance can be presented as an anti-immigration stance.
You were previously kind enough to answer my question regarding migration limits. If I recall correctly, your threshold was positive 80,000 per year.
If you ask Daniel (or CasinoRoyale, who I think says he has met him) what (in Hannan's view) will be the net inward migration in a conservative non-coalition government, and he refuses to give an actual number[1], then you have no basis for assuming he will not exceed your target.
And he will, by your own criterion, be pro-immigration.
NOTES ===== [1] maximum or average, per year or over the full term [2] yet
Oh good grief. The one policy they've come up with which was even close to being an asset for them.
I don't think the implementation of an energy price freeze, when the price of oil is falling would be that popular. I'm sure Ed will meddle with the energy companies another way.
Well, I hope so. But I have a horrible feeling this is Ed Balls and the other NewLabour relics in the shadow cabinet prevailing with their belief that they have to appease the hated big-business fatcats.
What manichean nonsense. The vast majority of this country realises there is positive immigration and negative immigration. It's only the imbecilic Labour party that believes all immigration is good, even if it's homeless Romanians or Bengali peasants.
I don't know what "manichean" means,[2] but I do know what "nonsense" means and I can assure you it is not nonsense. I contend that refusing to give a number as a threshold[1] and resorting to euphemisms ("controlled", "managed", "within (unspecified) numeric limits") is a method whereby a pro-immigration stance can be presented as an anti-immigration stance.
You were previously kind enough to answer my question regarding migration limits. If I recall correctly, your threshold was positive 80,000 per year.
If you ask Daniel (or CasinoRoyale, who I think says he has met him) what (in Hannan's view) will be the net inward migration in a conservative non-coalition government, and he refuses to give an actual number[1], then you have no basis for assuming he will not exceed your target.
And he will, by your own criterion, be pro-immigration.
NOTES ===== [1] maximum or average, per year or over the full term [2] yet
An adherent of Manichaeism is called, especially in older sources,[9] a Manichee, or more recently Manichaean. By extension, the term "manichean" is widely applied (often disparagingly) as an adjective to a philosophy or attitude of moral dualism, according to which a moral course of action involves a clear (or simplistic) choice between good and evil, or as a noun to people who hold such a view.
Have you included 2005 and 2001 GEs in your swingback analysis?
I only included instances where the government was behind at the start of the period (If anyone's wondering why I chose 17 months before the election, it's because 17 to 5 months out is equivalent to 2014). When I get chance I'll do a post with several charts (including where the government is leading - in that case the lead usually shrinks)
"What happened Roger - did a Jewish film producer overlook you for a feature directing role, leading to an unsatisfying career making toilet roll commercials?"
Unfortunately I've never been offered a toilet roll ad. The bastards.
An adherent of Manichaeism is called, especially in older sources,[9] a Manichee, or more recently Manichaean. By extension, the term "manichean" is widely applied (often disparagingly) as an adjective to a philosophy or attitude of moral dualism, according to which a moral course of action involves a clear (or simplistic) choice between good and evil, or as a noun to people who hold such a view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Thank you. Oddly helpful. Given I am watching "Smiley's People" on BBC4, it is also apposite.
Have you included 2005 and 2001 GEs in your swingback analysis?
I only included instances where the government was behind at the start of the period (If anyone's wondering why I chose 17 months before the election, it's because 17 to 5 months out is equivalent to 2014). When I get chance I'll do a post with several charts (including where the government is leading - in that case the lead usually shrinks)
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
Marf hits the nail of the head. While the Tories are busy trying to enact laws to monitor ALL our activity, and thoroughly understanding the nature of the internet, the jihadists will go back to nice and secure 1970s technology straight out of a Le Carre thriller.
The other thing my data analysis that doing, since ComRes and YouGov started prompting for UKIP, their average (mean, modal and median) has dropped, which is curious as some were convinced that prompting for UKIP would get a more accurate/higher figure for UKIP.
So what can we can infer from that? Could it be
1) Under the old non prompting methodology would the fall be even greater? or 2) Prompting was a bit of a red herring.
So that UKIP on 18% looks more and more like an outlier.
Compared to last nights 17%?
I was talking in a global sense
Oh
What were Ukips last three yougov scores?
14, 17, and 18
The Average this month so far with YouGov is 14.87% with a Standard Deviation of 0.01807
14 17 & 18 you say
And the outlier is 18...
You don't understand statistical analysis or polling do you.
As I'm off to bed, you can have the last word, as I am not alone in noticing you need to have the last word and you get a bit aggressive when you don't.
So that UKIP on 18% looks more and more like an outlier.
Compared to last nights 17%?
I was talking in a global sense
Oh
What were Ukips last three yougov scores?
14, 17, and 18
The Average this month so far with YouGov is 14.87% with a Standard Deviation of 0.01807
14 17 & 18 you say
And the outlier is 18...
You don't understand statistical analysis or polling do you.
As I'm off to bed, you can have the last word, as I am not alone in noticing you need to have the last word and you get a bit aggressive when you don't.
I don't mind I was just wondering what the last few polls for Ukip were... And you obliged well done
Any night of the week I can wander down Old Compton Street and see dozens of men dressed as women and vice versa. There are Batmen Spiderwomen cowboys in bikinis and even women dressed in Burqas. It's like a zoo.
Everyone gets on fine. There will always be Imams and Cyclefrees who want to tell people how to dress and what should be proscribed but in my opinion they should be resisted at all costs.
Those people are very much like my friends. I have no problem with the people you describe. The difference between us is I want to shut down those who advocate violence against them. You on the other hand support those people who would call down violence on their head. Those people are not most muslims but they are the hardcore fundamentalists and you and your despicable kind would rather we didn't describe their views as mediaevil and despicable
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
I'll take evens they don't poll 19% in the GE. You can even have the tie.
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
I'll take evens they don't poll 19% in the GE. You can even have the tie.
Actually, the Labour one looks like Gordon Brown in about 1985, the Green one looks like a cross between Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mo Mowlam, and the LD one looks like a mashup of Robert Maclennan and Eric Lubbock.
The other two remind me of people but I can't think exactly who.
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
I'll take evens they don't poll 19% in the GE. You can even have the tie.
So when you say 'peak kipper' you don't mean in the opinion polls, but in terms of General election numbers? Or else why would you frame that bet?
But Ukip must be a shade of odds on to get their best GE vote mustn't they?
Watch the mega spin along the lines of our threat to freeze prices and get tough the energy companies has forced them into action and pass on the fall into wholesale prices. If we hadn't, the big 6 would have continued as before to rip off the consumer...
This is really really unfair from the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.
They wont print the front cover of the magazine, their choice, but they have just printed on one of the worlds most popular websites the name and location of a small independent shopkeeper that is going to stock it.
Hilarious to see rod grasping at straws to try and back up his insane predictions by hanging onto one insane poll and Number cruncher's astrologically scientifically bizarre poll mashups
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
I'll take evens they don't poll 19% in the GE. You can even have the tie.
So when you say 'peak kipper' you don't mean in the opinion polls, but in terms of General election numbers? Or else why would you frame that bet?
But Ukip must be a shade of odds on to get their best GE vote mustn't they?
Peak Kipper according to ELBOW was week-ending 2nd Nov = 17.3%.
Hilarious to see rod grasping at straws to try and back up his insane predictions by hanging onto one insane poll and Number cruncher's astrologically scientifically bizarre poll mashups
Hilarious to see rod grasping at straws to try and back up his insane predictions by hanging onto one insane poll and Number cruncher's astrologically scientifically bizarre poll mashups
You do realise that Rod "insane predictions" were better than most last time around. Rather than just throw insults around, why don't you challenge him on the methodology etc he employs to state these things, which I think is a valid debate to be had.
This is really really unfair from the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.
They wont print the front cover of the magazine, their choice, but they have just printed on one of the worlds most popular websites the name and location of a small independent shopkeeper that is going to stock it.
Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.
What manichean nonsense. The vast majority of this country realises there is positive immigration and negative immigration. It's only the imbecilic Labour party that believes all immigration is good, even if it's homeless Romanians or Bengali peasants.
I don't know what "manichean" means,[2] but I do know what "nonsense" means and I can assure you it is not nonsense. I contend that refusing to give a number as a threshold[1] and resorting to euphemisms ("controlled", "managed", "within (unspecified) numeric limits") is a method whereby a pro-immigration stance can be presented as an anti-immigration stance.
You were previously kind enough to answer my question regarding migration limits. If I recall correctly, your threshold was positive 80,000 per year.
If you ask Daniel (or CasinoRoyale, who I think says he has met him) what (in Hannan's view) will be the net inward migration in a conservative non-coalition government, and he refuses to give an actual number[1], then you have no basis for assuming he will not exceed your target.
And he will, by your own criterion, be pro-immigration.
NOTES ===== [1] maximum or average, per year or over the full term [2] yet
An adherent of Manichaeism is called, especially in older sources,[9] a Manichee, or more recently Manichaean. By extension, the term "manichean" is widely applied (often disparagingly) as an adjective to a philosophy or attitude of moral dualism, according to which a moral course of action involves a clear (or simplistic) choice between good and evil, or as a noun to people who hold such a view.
The New York Times reports that Rick Santorum attacked four of his potential rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination. On first term Senators Rubio, Cruz, and Rand Paul, he had this to say: “Do we really want someone with this little experience? And the only experience they have basically — not Rubio, but Cruz and Paul because I don’t think Rubio is going to go — is bomb throwing? Do we really want somebody who’s a bomb thrower, with no track record of any accomplishments?” So you say you don’t like bomb throwers. And what exactly are you doing right now? On Mike Huckabee: “He has to talk about Common Core. I love talking about Common Core. He has to talk about immigration and the Dream Act. I love talking about immigration and the Dream Act. He has to talk about taxes; I haven’t voted for a tax increase. I have a 100 percent record on taxes, signed every pledge every year.” Mr. Santorum then turned to an aide and asked: “What’s the other one?” Reminded that Mr. Huckabee had once backed a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions, Mr. Santorum exclaimed: “Climate change. This guy was for climate change.” The Times report the response of three of his targets. First Ted Cruz’s response: Jason Miller, an adviser to Mr. Cruz, said the senator had “done exactly what he promised he’d do,” contending that Mr. Cruz had led “the fight to repeal Obamacare, protect the border and defend American sovereignty.”
That was a fairly measured response. Now for Huckabee’s reply: (emphasis added) Mr. Huckabee’s spokeswoman declined to address the individual issues, instead criticizing Mr. Santorum for “pulling the pin on grenades tossed in our own G.O.P. tent.” “Governor Huckabee’s actual views — not the distortions of them — are fortunately well documented in his own voice through 12 published books, six and a half years of television and radio commentary, and daily postings on his blog and Facebook,” said Alice Stewart, Mr. Huckabee’s spokeswoman and a former spokeswoman for Mr. Santorum. She has a point. If you are going to criticize others for being bomb throwers, you really shouldn’t be tossing that many bombs (or grenades in this case) yourself, especially into the tent of your fellow Republicans. And finally Paul’s response: Mr. Paul’s top strategist responded that the party should not take advice from a politician who was soundly defeated in 2006. “Senator Santorum lost re-election in his home state by 18 points nearly a decade ago, and has spent the time since then trying to convince people to elect him to an even higher office than the one he was booted out of,” said Doug Stafford, senior adviser to Mr. Paul. “We will pass on responding to his alleged wisdom.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/us/politics/rick-santorum-criticizes-rand-paul-and-ted-cruz-as-bomb-throwers.html?_r=2
Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.
Maybe so, but I suspect most people would rather be rich and have a government they dislike than vote for a bunch of economic illiterates and be poor (but feel good about themselves).
Meanwhile Huckabee launches his campaign with an attack on Beyonce, obviously a greater threat than ISIS 'Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has accused President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle of parenting by double-standard, in an interview published Tuesday, saying they shelter their daughters from some things but allow them to listen to the music of Beyoncé. While promoting his new book, Huckabee told People magazine, “I don’t understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything — how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school … and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable” in the lyrics and a Beyoncé choreography “best left for the privacy of her bedroom.” http://news.yahoo.com/huckabee-slams-obama-letting-daughters-listen-beyonce-185535240.html
Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.
Well quite, as irrational as that reaction is. The Tories need to hold up at least as well as last time; It's not out of the realms of possibility, but even if they do it won't help if Labour don't do the same.
Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.
Maybe so, but I suspect most people would rather be rich and have a government they dislike than vote for a bunch of economic illiterates and be poor (but feel good about themselves).
I suspect otherwise - mostly as who can tell who is an economic illiterate or not. They'll go back and forth saying the other is useless, and predictions are all nonsense, and I like most people I suspect cannot really tell who would be best in that regard. Gut feeling could carry the day -hell, it may take several months or years before people realise Labour austerity is, in impact, no different than when the Tories do it, but people still seem to give Labour a break for it as they are not as enthusiastic about it I guess.
Meanwhile Huckabee launches his campaign with an attack on Beyonce, obviously a greater threat than ISIS 'Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has accused President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle of parenting by double-standard, in an interview published Tuesday, saying they shelter their daughters from some things but allow them to listen to the music of Beyoncé. While promoting his new book, Huckabee told People magazine, “I don’t understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything — how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school … and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable” in the lyrics and a Beyoncé choreography “best left for the privacy of her bedroom.” http://news.yahoo.com/huckabee-slams-obama-letting-daughters-listen-beyonce-185535240.html
The problem the government face - the same one we face of course - ? ''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn. In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.'' ''The increase in spending in the last 2-3 years was not out of line with its average in the rest of the 2000s. The rise in spending was overwhelmingly deliberate.'' ''...spending more now means you probably need to spend at least as much tomorrow. Public spending is subject to a ratchet effect. Once it has been increased, to whatever level, it becomes curiously hard to cut. New entitlements quickly become established provisions, over which fierce battles are fought. Increasing spending is the easiest thing in the world for any politician, cutting it much harder.''
Blair and particularly Brown and the Labour party have manifestly shackled the UK economy and UK society with their shocking unfunded spending. Millions of voters were fools and many were selfish fools. I cannot help but wonder what Labours poll rating would be if the public had the wit to properly understand.
Kudos to Ronnie O'Sullivan for equalling Hendry record of 775 centuries. Looking forward to the record being broken on Thursday afternoon all being well.
Meanwhile, after the tragic events in Paris last week, an extremely important battle for the preservation of our way of life looks as though it may be beginning:
This is really really unfair from the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.
They wont print the front cover of the magazine, their choice, but they have just printed on one of the worlds most popular websites the name and location of a small independent shopkeeper that is going to stock it.
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
I'll take evens they don't poll 19% in the GE. You can even have the tie.
This is really really unfair from the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.
They wont print the front cover of the magazine, their choice, but they have just printed on one of the worlds most popular websites the name and location of a small independent shopkeeper that is going to stock it.
Kudos to Ronnie O'Sullivan for equalling Hendry record of 775 centuries. Looking forward to the record being broken on Thursday afternoon all being well.
Meanwhile, after the tragic events in Paris last week, an extremely important battle for the preservation of our way of life looks as though it may be beginning:
Last week's events in no way support another power grab that threatens the hard won civil liberties over the centuries that we enjoy in Britain today.
I don't get this "hard won" thing. There has never been a system of encryption the government didn't have access too. It is the advent of new technology that has given consumers that power, not any legal challenge. We face the dilemma in different terms to the past.
Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.
A large part of the country do not find that the tories make them physically ill. Even if they did then going by current polls every other political party would have the same effect on equal numbers at least of other parts of the country. So the remark is fatuous. To away and try to crudely weaponize some other area of social activity
Oh I am not obsessed with polls of parties I don't support like you Harold, but if you want to bet on Ukip not reaching 19% with you gov before the election I'm here waiting to take you on
I'll take evens they don't poll 19% in the GE. You can even have the tie.
This is really really unfair from the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.
They wont print the front cover of the magazine, their choice, but they have just printed on one of the worlds most popular websites the name and location of a small independent shopkeeper that is going to stock it.
All the news networks reporting today that Mitt Romney started calling friends, donors and operatives last Friday, and has told friends that he is now considering running again.
'Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.'
And you don't think that Labour is equally repellent to a very large part of the country after Iraq,millions dead & injured and the worst economic crash for 70 years.
'Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.'
And you don't think that Labour is equally repellent to a very large part of the country after Iraq,millions dead & injured and the worst economic crash for 70 years.
Perhaps, but it's a smaller part than those who despise the tories. All the evidence from polling over the last 4.5 years suggests is very clear on that.
The Labour brand is still very strong, despite it's leader. On the other hand the Tory brand is toxic and the dislike runs deeper.
I don't say that this is justified, but it's the cold hard truth as we've seen over and over again in every poll. Pretending it's otherwise don't make it so.
Already had a few Tories asking me if now will be like 1987 (the biggest swingback) because of the collapsing oil price (as was the case in 86-87)...
My response was "don't count on it...."
It's often forgotten that the Tories were greatly helped in 1987 by Labour's disastrous loss of the Greenwich byelection at the end of February. Whilst Rosie Barnes won it for the SDP the Tories were the real victors because it split the Anti- Tory vote - boosted the Tory lead to the extent that it allowed Thatcfher to call an election for June that year. There is no such prospect this year.
'The Labour brand is still very strong, despite it's leader. On the other hand the Tory brand is toxic and the dislike runs deeper.'
So toxic that the Tories are neck & neck with Labour in the polls.
Exactly right!!
Given the circumstances and Milibands shambolic leadership, the Tories should be miles ahead but are dragged down by the toxicity of their brand in large parts of the country.
Kudos to Ronnie O'Sullivan for equalling Hendry record of 775 centuries. Looking forward to the record being broken on Thursday afternoon all being well.
Meanwhile, after the tragic events in Paris last week, an extremely important battle for the preservation of our way of life looks as though it may be beginning:
Last week's events in no way support another power grab that threatens the hard won civil liberties over the centuries that we enjoy in Britain today.
I don't get this "hard won" thing. There has never been a system of encryption the government didn't have access too. It is the advent of new technology that has given consumers that power, not any legal challenge. We face the dilemma in different terms to the past.
Its more that
a) It won't change what terrorists do, in the slightest, endless places to download strong encryption from. Technology like Tor makes it effectively impossible to locate someone that doesn't want to be located. Ironically TOR was developed by DARPA (American defense research) for exactly that purpose.
b) You would have to ban most of the major social media platform who reacted to the intelligence service overreach revealed by Snowden by encrypting all their users sessions, banning half a billion Gmail users might be a little controversial, and if you dont, the rest is pointless.
c) It probably won't change what anyone tech savvy will do, loads of ways to hide that you are encrypting stuff if you can be bothered.
d) It will cripple our tech economy in the same way similar rules have in France, banks won't send financial data over unencrypted connections, international standards for handling credit cards, medical records etc all require encryption.
e) Just about every software development toolkit, in just about every language, for just about every operating system includes encryption functions.
f) LOTS of the best technical people will leave the country, the vast majority are very mobile, very well paid, and very active in support of their freedoms
g) The bulk of our technical companies will relocate abroad because of all the above reasons, but especially d) because they will want access to the best staff
h) Causing all the above to happen, so that you can read the mails of Joe Sixpack, while not being able to read the mails of any more terrorists than you could before does seems like a bit of an own goal
Iain Dale believes the Scottish opinion polls may be wrong because when he went through all the seats making predictions he came up with just 13 SNP seats although he bumped this up to 18 on revision:
"Technology like Tor makes it effectively impossible to locate someone that doesn't want to be located. Ironically TOR was developed by DARPA (American defense research) for exactly that purpose."
TOR is fatally compromised, I'd go as far as to say it's just one giant honeypot these days.
Regardless encryption is a total red herring
All of these snooping procedures rely on the enemy having poor OpSec process. If anyone has watched The Wire, you'll know how hard it is to crack a network of people and their comms if they follow good procedures.
Anyone wanting to communicate secretly just needs to purchase burner 'driod cellphones with cash, install cyongenmod, rewrite the IMEI codes, never connect them to the internet anywhere other than public locations using a VPN connection and physically destroy the devices after 2 weeks and replace.
If you don't have HumInit, SigInit isn't going to solve this problem for you.
"Technology like Tor makes it effectively impossible to locate someone that doesn't want to be located. Ironically TOR was developed by DARPA (American defense research) for exactly that purpose."
TOR is fatally compromised, I'd go as far as to say it's just one giant honeypot these days.
That probably true, but its on the cusp of being replace by the new generation of blockchain based distributed anonymous platforms anyway.
Kudos to Ronnie O'Sullivan for equalling Hendry record of 775 centuries. Looking forward to the record being broken on Thursday afternoon all being well.
Meanwhile, after the tragic events in Paris last week, an extremely important battle for the preservation of our way of life looks as though it may be beginning:
Last week's events in no way support another power grab that threatens the hard won civil liberties over the centuries that we enjoy in Britain today.
I don't get this "hard won" thing. There has never been a system of encryption the government didn't have access too. It is the advent of new technology that has given consumers that power, not any legal challenge. We face the dilemma in different terms to the past.
This is just wrong. Assymetric encryption has been around since the 1970s, and the government has never had access to it. Before that you could encrypt paper documents with ciphers to prevent the British government from reading it, as was done successfully during the American War of Independence. A traditional one-time pad can be done on paper and is as effective as any modern crypto system: It's the provably-secure yardstick against which modern crypto systems are measured.
"Technology like Tor makes it effectively impossible to locate someone that doesn't want to be located. Ironically TOR was developed by DARPA (American defense research) for exactly that purpose."
TOR is fatally compromised, I'd go as far as to say it's just one giant honeypot these days.
Regardless encryption is a total red herring
All of these snooping procedures rely on the enemy having poor OpSec process. If anyone has watched The Wire, you'll know how hard it is to crack a network of people and their comms if they follow good procedures.
Anyone wanting to communicate secretly just needs to purchase burner 'driod cellphones with cash, install cyongenmod, rewrite the IMEI codes, never connect them to the internet anywhere other than public locations using a VPN connection and physically destroy the devices after 2 weeks and replace.
If you don't have HumInit, SigInit isn't going to solve this problem for you.
The weird thing about this is that all the recent cases of successful attacks seem to already be on watchlists consisting of hundreds or thousands, but not tens of thousands, of suspects. When somebody goes a bit nuts somebody tends to tell the authorities about them. The problem is just that it's hard to keep an eye on this many guys 24/7. It's not really obvious what they'd be doing with all this SIGINT if they had it. Or rather it's obvious what they'd be doing with it, but it's nothing to do with terrorism.
Andy. You really must quote last trades rather than prices being offered on the Betfair exchange. This form of betting involves finding marches between punters prepared to bet at a certain price and those prepared to lay. What you are showing is what is being offered at the moment not the market price.
To get the last trade you need to log in and then click on the various options. You'll see a price screen and the last trade data.
Last trade data is not available to those without Betfair accounts.
For fans of political control of the internet and communications, I'll just leave this here, it has the usual amount of hypobole, but on the basics its pretty much on the money
Sneakers (1992) is a fun film, its a bit cheesey but still one of my favourites, and it does contain this prescient quote
"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"
Comments
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/555130504333099010
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-macintyres-sketch-i-am-the-prime-minister-tony-blair-told-select-committee--and-he-acted-as-if-he-was-9976322.html
Fantastic (and very professional) contributions to the site.
You were previously kind enough to answer my question regarding migration limits. If I recall correctly, your threshold was positive 80,000 per year.
If you ask Daniel (or CasinoRoyale, who I think says he has met him) what (in Hannan's view) will be the net inward migration in a conservative non-coalition government, and he refuses to give an actual number[1], then you have no basis for assuming he will not exceed your target.
And he will, by your own criterion, be pro-immigration.
NOTES
=====
[1] maximum or average, per year or over the full term
[2] yet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Blondie who was harassed as an "anti-Semite" doesn't understand the findings of the poll...
God, she's confused.
"What happened Roger - did a Jewish film producer overlook you for a feature directing role, leading to an unsatisfying career making toilet roll commercials?"
Unfortunately I've never been offered a toilet roll ad. The bastards.
What were Ukips last three yougov scores?
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver 5h5 hours ago
BBC just did a report on 900,000 new school places needed in next decade without mentioning immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88
The Average this month so far with YouGov is 14.87% with a Standard Deviation of 0.01807
Trend ain't your friend. Purple drain..
And the outlier is 18...
So what can we can infer from that? Could it be
1) Under the old non prompting methodology would the fall be even greater?
or
2) Prompting was a bit of a red herring.
As I'm off to bed, you can have the last word, as I am not alone in noticing you need to have the last word and you get a bit aggressive when you don't.
Muslims control the weather in Birmingham. Sometimes its Sunni, but most of the time it's Shi'ite #foxnewsfacts
Those people are very much like my friends. I have no problem with the people you describe. The difference between us is I want to shut down those who advocate violence against them. You on the other hand support those people who would call down violence on their head. Those people are not most muslims but they are the hardcore fundamentalists and you and your despicable kind would rather we didn't describe their views as mediaevil and despicable
pbs.twimg.com/media/B7Q3uJ5CIAEzR8K.jpg
What tie?
The other two remind me of people but I can't think exactly who.
But Ukip must be a shade of odds on to get their best GE vote mustn't they?
They wont print the front cover of the magazine, their choice, but they have just printed on one of the worlds most popular websites the name and location of a small independent shopkeeper that is going to stock it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908933/The-British-newsagent-determined-sell-new-Hebdo-magazine-Woman-admits-nervous-wants-future-generations-happened.html
Even if the women in question does want to show support etc, I don't think I would run that story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSZbvnVfqfE
Another brilliant cartoon by Marf!
Oil and petrol down, prices down, energy costs down, inflation down....
Just three months before the election.
Is Boy George a strategic genius after all?
http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/French-satirical-magazine-Charlie-Hebdo-sale/story-25842456-detail/story.html#ixzz3OkU6mouu
The New York Times reports that Rick Santorum attacked four of his potential rivals for the 2016 GOP nomination.
On first term Senators Rubio, Cruz, and Rand Paul, he had this to say:
“Do we really want someone with this little experience? And the only experience they have basically — not Rubio, but Cruz and Paul because I don’t think Rubio is going to go — is bomb throwing? Do we really want somebody who’s a bomb thrower, with no track record of any accomplishments?”
So you say you don’t like bomb throwers. And what exactly are you doing right now?
On Mike Huckabee:
“He has to talk about Common Core. I love talking about Common Core. He has to talk about immigration and the Dream Act. I love talking about immigration and the Dream Act. He has to talk about taxes; I haven’t voted for a tax increase. I have a 100 percent record on taxes, signed every pledge every year.”
Mr. Santorum then turned to an aide and asked: “What’s the other one?”
Reminded that Mr. Huckabee had once backed a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions, Mr. Santorum exclaimed: “Climate change. This guy was for climate change.”
The Times report the response of three of his targets. First Ted Cruz’s response:
Jason Miller, an adviser to Mr. Cruz, said the senator had “done exactly what he promised he’d do,” contending that Mr. Cruz had led “the fight to repeal Obamacare, protect the border and defend American sovereignty.”
That was a fairly measured response. Now for Huckabee’s reply: (emphasis added)
Mr. Huckabee’s spokeswoman declined to address the individual issues, instead criticizing Mr. Santorum for “pulling the pin on grenades tossed in our own G.O.P. tent.”
“Governor Huckabee’s actual views — not the distortions of them — are fortunately well documented in his own voice through 12 published books, six and a half years of television and radio commentary, and daily postings on his blog and Facebook,” said Alice Stewart, Mr. Huckabee’s spokeswoman and a former spokeswoman for Mr. Santorum.
She has a point. If you are going to criticize others for being bomb throwers, you really shouldn’t be tossing that many bombs (or grenades in this case) yourself, especially into the tent of your fellow Republicans.
And finally Paul’s response:
Mr. Paul’s top strategist responded that the party should not take advice from a politician who was soundly defeated in 2006.
“Senator Santorum lost re-election in his home state by 18 points nearly a decade ago, and has spent the time since then trying to convince people to elect him to an even higher office than the one he was booted out of,” said Doug Stafford, senior adviser to Mr. Paul. “We will pass on responding to his alleged wisdom.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/us/politics/rick-santorum-criticizes-rand-paul-and-ted-cruz-as-bomb-throwers.html?_r=2
Safer than most, I'd guess....
'Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has accused President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle of parenting by double-standard, in an interview published Tuesday, saying they shelter their daughters from some things but allow them to listen to the music of Beyoncé.
While promoting his new book, Huckabee told People magazine, “I don’t understand how on one hand they can be such doting parents and so careful about the intake of everything — how much broccoli they eat and where they go to school … and yet they don’t see anything that might not be suitable” in the lyrics and a Beyoncé choreography “best left for the privacy of her bedroom.”
http://news.yahoo.com/huckabee-slams-obama-letting-daughters-listen-beyonce-185535240.html
Night all.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/deer-park/michael-hoyt-john-boehner-plot-fbi-says-boehners-bartender-at-country-club-planned-to-poison-him
''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn.
In a decade, the size of the state increased by just over a half. It was the biggest sustained increase in public spending in British history.''
''The increase in spending in the last 2-3 years was not out of line with its average in the rest of the 2000s. The rise in spending was overwhelmingly deliberate.''
''...spending more now means you probably need to spend at least as much tomorrow. Public spending is subject to a ratchet effect. Once it has been increased, to whatever level, it becomes curiously hard to cut. New entitlements quickly become established provisions, over which fierce battles are fought. Increasing spending is the easiest thing in the world for any politician, cutting it much harder.''
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002073.html#more
Blair and particularly Brown and the Labour party have manifestly shackled the UK economy and UK society with their shocking unfunded spending. Millions of voters were fools and many were selfish fools. I cannot help but wonder what Labours poll rating would be if the public had the wit to properly understand.
Kudos to Ronnie O'Sullivan for equalling Hendry record of 775 centuries. Looking forward to the record being broken on Thursday afternoon all being well.
Meanwhile, after the tragic events in Paris last week, an extremely important battle for the preservation of our way of life looks as though it may be beginning:
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/13/paris-attack-next-excuse-to-ban-encryption-altogether/
Last week's events in no way support another power grab that threatens the hard won civil liberties over the centuries that we enjoy in Britain today.
https://twitter.com/poppy_skytv
'Oil could be free, wouldn't change the fact that a very large part of the country find that the tories make them physically ill and want them out of government and off the television as soon as possible.'
And you don't think that Labour is equally repellent to a very large part of the country after Iraq,millions dead & injured and the worst economic crash for 70 years.
The Labour brand is still very strong, despite it's leader. On the other hand the Tory brand is toxic and the dislike runs deeper.
I don't say that this is justified, but it's the cold hard truth as we've seen over and over again in every poll. Pretending it's otherwise don't make it so.
'The Labour brand is still very strong, despite it's leader. On the other hand the Tory brand is toxic and the dislike runs deeper.'
So toxic that the Tories are neck & neck with Labour in the polls.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490
*If* Republicans had any sense.
http://www.aberdeensnp.org/node/44
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=551
Given the circumstances and Milibands shambolic leadership, the Tories should be miles ahead but are dragged down by the toxicity of their brand in large parts of the country.
Its more that
a) It won't change what terrorists do, in the slightest, endless places to download strong encryption from. Technology like Tor makes it effectively impossible to locate someone that doesn't want to be located. Ironically TOR was developed by DARPA (American defense research) for exactly that purpose.
b) You would have to ban most of the major social media platform who reacted to the intelligence service overreach revealed by Snowden by encrypting all their users sessions, banning half a billion Gmail users might be a little controversial, and if you dont, the rest is pointless.
c) It probably won't change what anyone tech savvy will do, loads of ways to hide that you are encrypting stuff if you can be bothered.
d) It will cripple our tech economy in the same way similar rules have in France, banks won't send financial data over unencrypted connections, international standards for handling credit cards, medical records etc all require encryption.
e) Just about every software development toolkit, in just about every language, for just about every operating system includes encryption functions.
f) LOTS of the best technical people will leave the country, the vast majority are very mobile, very well paid, and very active in support of their freedoms
g) The bulk of our technical companies will relocate abroad because of all the above reasons, but especially d) because they will want access to the best staff
h) Causing all the above to happen, so that you can read the mails of Joe Sixpack, while not being able to read the mails of any more terrorists than you could before does seems like a bit of an own goal
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2015/01/13/can-the-scottish-polls-be-right
TOR is fatally compromised, I'd go as far as to say it's just one giant honeypot these days.
Regardless encryption is a total red herring
All of these snooping procedures rely on the enemy having poor OpSec process. If anyone has watched The Wire, you'll know how hard it is to crack a network of people and their comms if they follow good procedures.
Anyone wanting to communicate secretly just needs to purchase burner 'driod cellphones with cash, install cyongenmod, rewrite the IMEI codes, never connect them to the internet anywhere other than public locations using a VPN connection and physically destroy the devices after 2 weeks and replace.
If you don't have HumInit, SigInit isn't going to solve this problem for you.
To get the last trade you need to log in and then click on the various options. You'll see a price screen and the last trade data.
Last trade data is not available to those without Betfair accounts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10881213/The-coming-digital-anarchy.html
Sneakers (1992) is a fun film, its a bit cheesey but still one of my favourites, and it does contain this prescient quote