politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Lord Ashcroft marginals polling finds smaller CON to LA

Charles said:

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

Good-government-minded people certainly did not try to split it up and all opposed that bonkers proposal. The man behind it was not a good-governance guy but a wealthy venture capitalist that wanted to gerrymander the state so that the wealthy coastal areas could have an electoral majority to support his ideological goals (such as cutting taxes for the rich).

Are you sure about this? I know who Tim Draper is but it's not obvious the state of Silicon Valley would be right-wing... Maybe they'd close all the schools and do everything online though. To the extent that there's a gerrymandering angle I think it's more that you can elect Republicans in the interior?

I oversimplified things. There were three effects:

- To split out the low-income Hispanics among Republican dominated states to weaken their electoral influence
- To split off the high income Democrats along the coast from their low income partisans, so that the pro-Silicon valley low-tax Democrats come to the fore
- To have more states for low population Republican areas so the GOP get more Senators

Or to:

(A) Ameliorate the situation where 45% of the state votes GOP but is permanently represented by 2 Democrat Senators

(B) Mitigate the outrageous gerrymandering that pairs the very different communities of Downtown LA (compton) with Orange County to maximise the number of Democrat Congressmen

(C) to spot those idiots in Sacromento wasting SoCal's money on bullsh1t schemes like the Railway to Nowhere

I find it mystifying that the American public tolerate gerrymandering at that egregious level. Some of the boundaries are un-fecking-believable (although I note that California is one of the few states with an independent districting commission).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

Not sure I'd invest at 1-3 on the basis of those tables...

On those tables it would have been 3/1 in Sheffield Hallam for the Tories, Labour and the LD in October 2010.
Since then of course things have changed, to the detriment of the LD's.

You mean 2-1 the three ?

Actually on those tables I'd price it

6-5 Lib Dem
2-1
5-2 Cons

methinks.

TheWatcher said:

Indigo said:

BenM said:

NickPalmer said:

Incidentally, this poll again shows slightly higher swings on average than in the country as a whole - roughly equivalent to a Labour lead of 3 nationally. I'd hesitate to draw many conclusions, except that we're not seeing a net incumbency bonus.

I imagine a lot of voters look at the 2010 Tory intake and have no affinity with them at all.

That's a bizarre thing to say, they must have had enough affinity with them to elect them in 2010 in the first place.

The evil Tories hadn't eaten any babies at that point.

That wasn't the case in Scotland - by then they'd eaten not only whole kindergartens but the local dog's home and cattery.

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

Not sure I'd invest at 1-3 on the basis of those tables...

On those tables it would have been 3/1 in Sheffield Hallam for the Tories, Labour and the LD in October 2010.
Since then of course things have changed, to the detriment of the LD's.

You mean 2-1 the three ?

Actually on those tables I'd price it

6-5 Lib Dem
2-1
5-2 Cons

methinks.

On those tables all 3 would have had an equal chance.

antifrank said:

AndyJS said:

Perhaps the biggest problem for Labour at the moment is the possibility that an increasing number of LD defectors are moving over to the Greens rather than to them. The Greens have been selecting a large number of candidates in recent days and weeks, many of them in constituencies they didn't contest in 2010. They usually poll at least 500 votes, even in weak areas.

Lord Ashcroft prompts respondents in his polls for the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, Labour and UKIP, but not for the Greens. This is worth bearing in mind, not just for its implications on the Greens' performance but for the possible impact on the performance of other parties, particularly Labour.

He doesn't prompt for UKIP in the ANP, do you mean in the constituencies?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

I told you 6 months ago about that poll, a 2 point difference in October 2010 and since then the LD have fallen further means that Clegg is in trouble.
Also the newer ICM poll had Clegg battling for second place with the Tories with Labour 10 points ahead.

My knowledge of South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam is brilliant.

I said UKIP wouldn't win the Police Commisioner elections.

Labour made much play of the Ashcroft poll in the Sheffield locals.

They invited Sheffield Hallam voters to send Nick Clegg a message.

The voters sent a message by voting Lib Dem.

You shot yourself on the foot by posting the Ashcroft poll showing Nick Clegg just 2 points ahead of Labour and 5 points ahead of the Tories back in October 2010.
Now everyone knows that Clegg is in trouble.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

Not sure I'd invest at 1-3 on the basis of those tables...

On those tables it would have been 3/1 in Sheffield Hallam for the Tories, Labour and the LD in October 2010.
Since then of course things have changed, to the detriment of the LD's.

You mean 2-1 the three ?

Actually on those tables I'd price it

6-5 Lib Dem
2-1
5-2 Cons

methinks.

I'll take £100 on the 6/5 :-)

Isn't there a poll about that names Clegg and finds him to be a fair way ahead though >?

No.

Damian said if you analysed the ICM Oakeshott phone poll, which didn't name Clegg, would have shown Clegg ahead if he had been named he thought.

Fabulously snarky article on the decision to remove a Steve Jobs memorial in Russia, the reason being: "After Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly called for sodomy, the monument was taken down to abide to the Russian federal law protecting children from information promoting denial of traditional family values."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/03/russia_steve_jobs_memorial_tim_cook

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

Not sure I'd invest at 1-3 on the basis of those tables...

On those tables it would have been 3/1 in Sheffield Hallam for the Tories, Labour and the LD in October 2010.
Since then of course things have changed, to the detriment of the LD's.

You mean 2-1 the three ?

Actually on those tables I'd price it

6-5 Lib Dem
2-1
5-2 Cons

methinks.

I'll take £100 on the 6/5 :-)

Isn't there a poll about that names Clegg and finds him to be a fair way ahead though >?

No.

Damian said if you analysed the ICM Oakeshott phone poll, which didn't name Clegg, would have shown Clegg ahead if he had been named he thought.

Oh Lord well I'm most definitely staying out of any further Hallam betting then.

Pulpstar said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820585/Stately-home-sold-council-market-TEN-TIMES-price.html

Windlestone Hall, near Rushyford in Durham, was sold by Durham County Council for £241,000 in 2012

Council says they had 'good value' for the sale given its condition and the £3 million in repairs that were needed

The birthplace of former Conservative Prime Minister Anthony Eden is now on sale for £2.5 million

Something doesn't look quite right about all that.

(A) different market times
(B) Asking prices, not selling price
(C) he's split the house into several units, which will increase the marketability (eg the central span is on at £1.5m) and the DM has just aggregates

I suspect the council sold badly, but it doesn't naturally follow it was that bad a deal

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

Yes it is. And a far more far-fetched one, that involves the suspension of the laws of physics amongst other things.

Luckyguy1983 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

1. When I said 'deep state elements within the US' I meant the US, yes -well deduced.

2. I have no idea what the motivations of those who hijacked the planes were -not being in their heads. However, the close links between US intelligence and Saudi extremism are far more public now than they were at the time, and can hardly go unnoticed. Being both a jihadist and an agent of US power has never been mutually exclusive.

3. This question beggars belief. Are you familiar with the concept of a false flag attack? What the US authorities gained was a licence to re-arrange the map of the world on the pretext of waging a war on terror. Let's not rehearse '45 minutes' Iraq, etc. Madeleine Albright, when asked whether the half a million dead in Iraq was a price worth paying, replied quite casually that she thought it was. What is 3 thousand Americans to minds unmoved by half a million? It is naive to suggest that such people share our bourgeois moral parameters.

What did Al Qaeda get out of it by the way? A lot less it would appear to me.

4. Independent thought (imagine it!) is widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community. Where that thought leads, you would have to ask the individual.

OK thanks, we'll have to agree to differ. If you can swallow all that it's no surprise that you can agree with Nigel.

Anorak said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

QTWTAIN

Why?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

I told you 6 months ago about that poll, a 2 point difference in October 2010 and since then the LD have fallen further means that Clegg is in trouble.
Also the newer ICM poll had Clegg battling for second place with the Tories with Labour 10 points ahead.

My knowledge of South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam is brilliant.

I said UKIP wouldn't win the Police Commisioner elections.

Labour made much play of the Ashcroft poll in the Sheffield locals.

They invited Sheffield Hallam voters to send Nick Clegg a message.

The voters sent a message by voting Lib Dem.

You shot yourself on the foot by posting the Ashcroft poll showing Nick Clegg just 2 points ahead of Labour and 5 points ahead of the Tories back in October 2010.
Now everyone knows that Clegg is in trouble.

That's why he's still the odds on favourite.

Given the nose-dive in LD national polling since 2010, would that still be the case?

He around 1/3 right now.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

Yes it is. And a far more far-fetched one, that involves the suspension of the laws of physics amongst other things.

The most Reverend Professor Richard Nabavi is an Oxford educated Physicist.

Next time he's about can you talk about the physics problems you mention

I could do with a good laugh.

Plus physics gives me a hadron

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

I told you 6 months ago about that poll, a 2 point difference in October 2010 and since then the LD have fallen further means that Clegg is in trouble.
Also the newer ICM poll had Clegg battling for second place with the Tories with Labour 10 points ahead.

My knowledge of South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam is brilliant.

I said UKIP wouldn't win the Police Commisioner elections.

Labour made much play of the Ashcroft poll in the Sheffield locals.

They invited Sheffield Hallam voters to send Nick Clegg a message.

The voters sent a message by voting Lib Dem.

You shot yourself on the foot by posting the Ashcroft poll showing Nick Clegg just 2 points ahead of Labour and 5 points ahead of the Tories back in October 2010.
Now everyone knows that Clegg is in trouble.

That's why he's still the odds on favourite.

Given the nose-dive in LD national polling since 2010, would that still be the case?

He around 1/3 right now.

And don't forget, his leadership ratings are almost as bad as Ed's!!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

I told you 6 months ago about that poll, a 2 point difference in October 2010 and since then the LD have fallen further means that Clegg is in trouble.
Also the newer ICM poll had Clegg battling for second place with the Tories with Labour 10 points ahead.

My knowledge of South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam is brilliant.

I said UKIP wouldn't win the Police Commisioner elections.

Labour made much play of the Ashcroft poll in the Sheffield locals.

They invited Sheffield Hallam voters to send Nick Clegg a message.

The voters sent a message by voting Lib Dem.

You shot yourself on the foot by posting the Ashcroft poll showing Nick Clegg just 2 points ahead of Labour and 5 points ahead of the Tories back in October 2010.
Now everyone knows that Clegg is in trouble.

That's why he's still the odds on favourite.

Given the nose-dive in LD national polling since 2010, would that still be the case?

He around 1/3 right now.

And don't forget, his leadership ratings are almost as bad as Ed's!!

But he's very popular in Sheffield Hallam.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

I told you 6 months ago about that poll, a 2 point difference in October 2010 and since then the LD have fallen further means that Clegg is in trouble.
Also the newer ICM poll had Clegg battling for second place with the Tories with Labour 10 points ahead.

My knowledge of South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam is brilliant.

I said UKIP wouldn't win the Police Commisioner elections.

Labour made much play of the Ashcroft poll in the Sheffield locals.

They invited Sheffield Hallam voters to send Nick Clegg a message.

The voters sent a message by voting Lib Dem.

You shot yourself on the foot by posting the Ashcroft poll showing Nick Clegg just 2 points ahead of Labour and 5 points ahead of the Tories back in October 2010.
Now everyone knows that Clegg is in trouble.

That's why he's still the odds on favourite.

Given the nose-dive in LD national polling since 2010, would that still be the case?

He around 1/3 right now.

And don't forget, his leadership ratings are almost as bad as Ed's!!

But he's very popular in Sheffield Hallam.

As that notorious ICM poll showed in some of its later questions. 45% of the electorate thought that he was doing a good job as a local MP.

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft did poll Sheffield Hallam in late 2010 and had it as a LD hold

http://www.lordashcroft.com/pdf/sheffield_hallam_poll_tables.pdf

I told you 6 months ago about that poll, a 2 point difference in October 2010 and since then the LD have fallen further means that Clegg is in trouble.
Also the newer ICM poll had Clegg battling for second place with the Tories with Labour 10 points ahead.

My knowledge of South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam is brilliant.

I said UKIP wouldn't win the Police Commisioner elections.

Labour made much play of the Ashcroft poll in the Sheffield locals.

They invited Sheffield Hallam voters to send Nick Clegg a message.

The voters sent a message by voting Lib Dem.

You shot yourself on the foot by posting the Ashcroft poll showing Nick Clegg just 2 points ahead of Labour and 5 points ahead of the Tories back in October 2010.
Now everyone knows that Clegg is in trouble.

That's why he's still the odds on favourite.

Given the nose-dive in LD national polling since 2010, would that still be the case?

He around 1/3 right now.

And don't forget, his leadership ratings are almost as bad as Ed's!!

But he's very popular in Sheffield Hallam.

As that notorious ICM poll showed in some of its later questions. 45% of the electorate thought that he was doing a good job as a local MP.

Shush. I'm trying to get price to go up.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

Yes it is. And a far more far-fetched one, that involves the suspension of the laws of physics amongst other things.

The most Reverend Professor Richard Nabavi is an Oxford educated Physicist.

Next time he's about can you talk about the physics problems you mention

I could do with a good laugh.

Plus physics gives me a hadron

Did I tell you I went to the visitors' centre at CERN during my trip to Geneva a few weeks back?

Anorak said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Anorak said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

QTWTAIN

Why?

A conspiricy theory is (usually) taken to be held by a minority and involve the authorities or corporate interests hiding the truth from the public. Al Qaeda did it, they claimed they did it, and most people believe they did it. On those grounds I don't think it can be in the same class as "the CIA were behind 9/11" or "airplane contrails are full of mind-control drugs" or "aliens landed in Roswell".

So Bin Laden remotely piloted the planes from a cave in Afghanistan! Just another conspiracy theory!

Is it me or did UKIP and the tories move a little less far away from each other today?

If not an olive branch, an olive twig?

Anorak said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Anorak said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

QTWTAIN

Why?

A conspiricy theory is (usually) taken to be held by a minority and involve the authorities or corporate interests hiding the truth from the public. Al Qaeda did it, they claimed they did it, and most people believe they did it. On those grounds I don't think it can be in the same class as "the CIA were behind 9/11" or "airplane contrails are full of mind-control drugs" or "aliens landed in Roswell".

This is a bit rich -so only the great unwashed have 'conspiracy theories' -when a bunch of total hogwash (Assad being in control of ISIS for example) is being pedalled by the MSM, it's not a conspiracy theory?

FalseFlag said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

The belief in conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the defensiveness over Putin are both products of the anti-Americanism, in my opinion. Lucky is a nice guy, and a smart guy, but his coherence goes off the rails when the US comes into it. He believes the British Empire was much better as a superpower than the USA was, and for this he cites the British Empire being more of a force for free trade. Apparently some protectionist tariffs after the Great Depression are a greater crime against free trade than a mercantilist system of monopolies and 80%+ taxes over the entirety of a subcontinent.

I think the British Empire was the greatest.

If only it had been a fully democratic Federation!

Freedom, Fraternity, Federation!

If I had my way, and I freely confess it would have depended on an extensive amount of Alternate History along the way (particularly in regard to the USA and Ireland!), my Commonwealth of English-speaking Nations and Peoples would consist of:

* All current Commonwealth members, including external territories where relevant
* Fiji (currently suspended, of course)
* The ex-members: Ireland, Zimbabwe and the Gambia
* Hong Kong (despite the transfer, still using English in an official capacity)

Plus: The nine other nations and one unrecognised state with English as a de facto or de jure official language:

* USA! USA! USA!, and its external territories
* Palau (former US mandate)
* Micronesia (former US Mandate)
* Marshall Islands (former US Mandate)
* The Philippines
* Liberia
* Sudan
* South Sudan
* Eritrea
* and the break-away region of Somaliland (northern part of Somalia)

Plus (again!):
* The whole of the EU (those 24 countries not already mentioned above), by virtue of it being a political union, with English an official language (sneaky, I know!). Plus their current external territories, just for a bit of fun (this would apply to France, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands)

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

The belief in conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the defensiveness over Putin are both products of the anti-Americanism, in my opinion. Lucky is a nice guy, and a smart guy, but his coherence goes off the rails when the US comes into it. He believes the British Empire was much better as a superpower than the USA was, and for this he cites the British Empire being more of a force for free trade. Apparently some protectionist tariffs after the Great Depression are a greater crime against free trade than a mercantilist system of monopolies and 80%+ taxes over the entirety of a subcontinent.

You should really compare like-for-like i.e. what one country was doing vis a vis its contemporaries, not against another country two or three centuries later / earlier, when global conditions were immensely different.

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Isn't it just another "conspiracy theory" to believe 9/11 was organised by some bearded Saudi exile living in a remote cave in Afghanistan?

I'm not saying it is a "conspiracy theory", just posing the question

Yes it is. And a far more far-fetched one, that involves the suspension of the laws of physics amongst other things.

The most Reverend Professor Richard Nabavi is an Oxford educated Physicist.

Next time he's about can you talk about the physics problems you mention

I could do with a good laugh.

Plus physics gives me a hadron

He's welcome to tell me how aviation fuel or burning debris is capable of bringing down a steel framed skyscraper -I look forward to it.

There was a very good documentary on television which explained precisely how the towers fell as a result of the planes crashing into them. The explanations were given by structural engineers and others who have precisely the sort of expertise which would enable them to understand and explain the mechanics.

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

The belief in conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the defensiveness over Putin are both products of the anti-Americanism, in my opinion. Lucky is a nice guy, and a smart guy, but his coherence goes off the rails when the US comes into it. He believes the British Empire was much better as a superpower than the USA was, and for this he cites the British Empire being more of a force for free trade. Apparently some protectionist tariffs after the Great Depression are a greater crime against free trade than a mercantilist system of monopolies and 80%+ taxes over the entirety of a subcontinent.

Not just for free trade -far more importantly for how peaceful it was (which obviously feed into each other).

Cyclefree said:

There was a very good documentary on television which explained precisely how the towers fell as a result of the planes crashing into them. The explanations were given by structural engineers and others who have precisely the sort of expertise which would enable them to understand and explain the mechanics.

I don't doubt it. To set against that, there is an entire society called 'Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth'. Which is obviously a slightly bigger affair than some talking heads on a programme. You might ask yourself (though you'll know the answer) why no opposing opinions were sought for your programme.

http://www.ae911truth.org

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

3. This question beggars belief. Are you familiar with the concept of a false flag attack? What the US authorities gained was a licence to re-arrange the map of the world on the pretext of waging a war on terror. Let's not rehearse '45 minutes' Iraq, etc. Madeleine Albright, when asked whether the half a million dead in Iraq was a price worth paying, replied quite casually that she thought it was. What is 3 thousand Americans to minds unmoved by half a million? It is naive to suggest that such people share our bourgeois moral parameters.

What did Al Qaeda get out of it by the way? A lot less it would appear to me.

The Bush administration was planning on invading Iraq regardless of 9/11 - it was part of the New American Century proposal. 9/11 In fact fucked with their plans as they had to delay going to Iraq and invade Afghanistan which cost them billions and stretched their military resources to breaking point.

It would make it the dumbest false flag operation in history.

Didn't the Bush Administration drum up support for the Iraq War in 2002-3 because they accused Saddam of involvement in 9/11?

Yes and No, whilst they clearly tried to link Iraq and Al Qaeda in public pronouncements they never actually stated a definitive link between Saddam and 9/11 and their intelligence services were continually telling them that there was bugger all evidence even for a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda never mind 9/11.

So whilst the majority of the US population thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 at the time of the US invasion that was through piss poor reporting by the US media of pretty vague statements by the Bush admin. By 2006 Bush himself was point blank saying there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

America invaded Afghanistan because the intelligence pointed that the ringleaders were there. America botched the invasion of Afghanistan and apprehension of Bin Laden because the Bush Administration didn't want to be invading Afghanistan - they wanted to be invading Iraq like they had planned to before coming to power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century is the intellectual foundation of what the Bush administration did, the PNAC wanted regime change in Iraq. The Bush Administration was going to implement regime change in Iraq 9/11 or no 9/11.

Alistair said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

3. This question beggars belief. Are you familiar with the concept of a false flag attack? What the US authorities gained was a licence to re-arrange the map of the world on the pretext of waging a war on terror. Let's not rehearse '45 minutes' Iraq, etc. Madeleine Albright, when asked whether the half a million dead in Iraq was a price worth paying, replied quite casually that she thought it was. What is 3 thousand Americans to minds unmoved by half a million? It is naive to suggest that such people share our bourgeois moral parameters.

What did Al Qaeda get out of it by the way? A lot less it would appear to me.

The Bush administration was planning on invading Iraq regardless of 9/11 - it was part of the New American Century proposal. 9/11 In fact fucked with their plans as they had to delay going to Iraq and invade Afghanistan which cost them billions and stretched their military resources to breaking point.

It would make it the dumbest false flag operation in history.

Didn't the Bush Administration drum up support for the Iraq War in 2002-3 because they accused Saddam of involvement in 9/11?

Yes and No, whilst they clearly tried to link Iraq and Al Qaeda in public pronouncements they never actually stated a definitive link between Saddam and 9/11 and their intelligence services were continually telling them that there was bugger all evidence even for a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda never mind 9/11.

So whilst the majority of the US population thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 at the time of the US invasion that was through piss poor reporting by the US media of pretty vague statements by the Bush admin. By 2006 Bush himself was point blank saying there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

America invaded Afghanistan because the intelligence pointed that the ringleaders were there. America botched the invasion of Afghanistan and apprehension of Bin Laden because the Bush Administration didn't want to be invading Afghanistan - they wanted to be invading Iraq like they had planned to before coming to power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century is the intellectual foundation of what the Bush administration did, the PNAC wanted regime change in Iraq. The Bush Administration was going to implement regime change in Iraq 9/11 or no 9/11.

Do you think it would have been easier for Bush and Co. to find support at home and in the wider world for war in Iraq with or without 9/11?

MarqueeMark said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

I actually went to this when I was living in CO! Can't say I was entirely convinced by the "truther", but it was interesting none the less:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/459-uc-boulder-debate.html

For those who want to know more about the role of molten aluminium in the collapse of the Twin Towers:

http://www.livescience.com/16179-twin-tower-collapse-model-squash-9-11-conspiracies.html

Skyscrapers aren't normally made of aluminium, it's too weak.

OldKingCole said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

logical_song said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Indigo said:

FalseFlag said:

Foreign policy should be dictated by the pursuit of the national interest within acceptable moral boundaries.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

YES. Note the word 'our' rather than 'America's'. Palmerston must be turning in his grave.

I didn't see your answer the other day on what you thought probably happened on 9/11.

I didn't see the question, apologies. I tend toward the theory that the attack was planned and carried out by deep state elements or rogue networks within the US. Not that the planes or the hijackers did not exist, just that they were part of a far wider plan.

So the 9/11 hijackers were part of a wide plan carried out by "deep state elements". I presume you mean the US.
Were these suicide hijackers US agents or unwitting pawns? It's generally accepted that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were behind the attacks, so was Osama working for the US too? What did the US get out of killing 3,000 of it's own citizens?
Is this belief widespread amongst the UKIP supporting community?

LuckyGuy combines excellent economic and domestic policy beliefs, with a bizarre anti-Americanisn, an absurd belief in conspiracy theories, and a disturbing love of Vladamir Putin.

Thanks for your very kind comments.

They are actually all part of the same thing. I tend to be very sceptical of what I read in the press.

I an not 'pro Putin'. Vladimir Putin is undoubtedly ruthless and growingly autocratic, but the caricature in the media of a Dick Darstardly style villain who invades on a whim is simply silly. Even Hitler had a game plan. Do I believe Putin's game plan is to control and dominate our country and my life? Nope. Is there anything to be gained from antagonising him? Nope. Are we doing it because America (who recently called him the biggest threat to humanity) are doing it? Yep. Is this an area where their interests and ours are misaligned, therefore we should shut our traps and see which way things go? Yep.

I don't believe in 'conspiracy theories' as some sort of rule -if I think there is one, I believe in it. Same as everybody else.

We have disagreed sharply in the past but IMHO you are quite correct about this.

Thanks -can't even remember what it was about!

Luckyguy1983 - the steel RSJs in my house are protected from fire (a domestic fire) by fire proof boxing - the reason is, steel gets soft when hot - like a blacksmith knows when he is fitting a horse shoe.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

There was a very good documentary on television which explained precisely how the towers fell as a result of the planes crashing into them. The explanations were given by structural engineers and others who have precisely the sort of expertise which would enable them to understand and explain the mechanics.

I don't doubt it. To set against that, there is an entire society called 'Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth'. Which is obviously a slightly bigger affair than some talking heads on a programme. You might ask yourself (though you'll know the answer) why no opposing opinions were sought for your programme.

http://www.ae911truth.org

Ah yes: the size of a society is the key factor in determining whether what they say is valid or not.

One of the "talking heads" on the programme, BTW, was one of the structural engineers involved in the building of the Twin Towers and who, one might reasonably expect, would know a great deal about how the building was constructed, what impacts it was designed to withstand, the level of fireproofing the steel had and how it would or would not survive being blown off by a large jet and how long steel without fireproofing can survive a fire - not just from the aviation fuel - but from all the other burning material.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Do you think it would have been easier for Bush and Co. to find support at home and in the wider world for war in Iraq with or without 9/11?

Very hard to say. I imagine that without 9/11 they'd have concocted a weapons of mass destruction narrative (which they also did even with 9/11) to get the home support. It's not liking bombing Iraq was a unpopular policy domestically. Clinton would do it whenever he got bored.

Having to deal with the Taliban/Al Qaeda was a massive headache for the Bush admin - 9/11 caused them massive problems which is the principle reason to think 9/11 being a false flag operation is ridiculous.