politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hung parliament maintains its favourite status in the gener
Comments
-
Well I'm writing a thread about the Scottish Independence referendum as we speak that should go up tomorrow afternoon.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, cheers (although I did know it was due next year!).
It will delight PBers of all persuasions.
0 -
"As a father Dave" against "like any parent Ed" - whoever wins, we all lose.tim said:Dave to go As a Fathertastic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349927/Miliband-reveals-fears-sons-aged-access-porn-smartphones.html0 -
Mr. Eagles, whilst interesting I'm afraid it pales in comparison to the delights of differential front end grip.0
-
Wait until you read it.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, whilst interesting I'm afraid it pales in comparison to the delights of differential front end grip.
0 -
Sex Scandal involving Len McCluskey and union jobs
Neil Henderson @hendopolis 2m
MAIL ON SUNDAY: Mother of union boss love child fixes MPs for Labour #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers
pic.twitter.com/kAax6KsJKv0 -
Mr. Eagles, don't be silly. Next you'll be claiming it's more thrilling than fixed gear ratios.0
-
So should you when you go on about Cameron doing it for the millionth time (while ignoring every Labour politician who has ever done it)!tim said:
All politicians should have electrodes fitted to their genitalia and receive electric shocks of increasing voltage every time they go on about their children.Neil said:
"As a father Dave" against "like any parent Ed" - whoever wins, we all lose.tim said:Dave to go As a Fathertastic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349927/Miliband-reveals-fears-sons-aged-access-porn-smartphones.html0 -
-
-
... "If independence is rejected, however, there is is a real danger that politicians at Westminster and officials in Whitehall may think they can put away the files and not worry about Scotland anymore.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gavin-mccrone-indy-would-be-costlybut-no-vote-will-mean-no-more-devo.1374326058
"Proposals for increased devolution might then be shelved. That is quite a likely outcome but it would be a huge mistake.
"It would probably mean the next time there was a big surge in support for independence in Scotland maybe, in 10 or 20 years time, it would carry the day."
0 -
So they read it in a document published by the Mises Institute, like I and countless others did... Anyone can use the internet, I believe...tim said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did Churchill really say "we've slaughtered the wrong pig" in 1945 (as claimed by Rod C on last night's PB NightHawks)?tim said:
Looks like Labour has lost the William Joyce vote thenRodCrosby said:
Yes, more of the same, please! A rabble of chancers and narcissists scrabbling for the top job ten minutes after becoming an MP.HYUFD said:Rod - Except for Chuka, who is now the true 'heir to Blair' apparently!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b2e9e3a6-ef46-11e2-bb27-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ZYhZXKkZ
Labour - not fit to manage a bus stop...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=179239
http://viennanet.info/polemics/churchill
I was shocked to find that it's a phrase used by Third Reich revisionists, shocked.
It also appears in at least one scholarly work.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJDo96sHGa8C&pg=PA22&dq=churchill+wrong++pig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qPnqUY_1DMTo7Aad_YDgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pig&f=false
You will never catch me out by using the methods of Goebbels, tim.
Or at all...0 -
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gavin-mccrone-indy-would-be-costlybut-no-vote-will-mean-no-more-devo.1374326058Stuart_Dickson said:... "If independence is rejected, however, there is is a real danger that politicians at Westminster and officials in Whitehall may think they can put away the files and not worry about Scotland anymore.
"Proposals for increased devolution might then be shelved. That is quite a likely outcome but it would be a huge mistake.
"It would probably mean the next time there was a big surge in support for independence in Scotland maybe, in 10 or 20 years time, it would carry the day."
If there is a No vote, I'm hoping for some form of constitutional settlement for all the countries in the UK.
0 -
Irony in mentioning the name Goebbels, Rod?RodCrosby said:
So they read it in a document published by the Mises Institute, like I and countless others did... Anyone can use the internet, I believe...tim said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did Churchill really say "we've slaughtered the wrong pig" in 1945 (as claimed by Rod C on last night's PB NightHawks)?tim said:
Looks like Labour has lost the William Joyce vote thenRodCrosby said:
Yes, more of the same, please! A rabble of chancers and narcissists scrabbling for the top job ten minutes after becoming an MP.HYUFD said:Rod - Except for Chuka, who is now the true 'heir to Blair' apparently!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b2e9e3a6-ef46-11e2-bb27-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ZYhZXKkZ
Labour - not fit to manage a bus stop...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=179239
http://viennanet.info/polemics/churchill
I was shocked to find that it's a phrase used by Third Reich revisionists, shocked.
It also appears in at least one scholarly work.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJDo96sHGa8C&pg=PA22&dq=churchill+wrong++pig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qPnqUY_1DMTo7Aad_YDgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pig&f=false
You will never catch me out by using the methods of Goebbels, tim.
Or at all...0 -
Irony? He was one of my best students!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Irony in mentioning the name Goebbels, Rod?RodCrosby said:
So they read it in a document published by the Mises Institute, like I and countless others did... Anyone can use the internet, I believe...tim said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did Churchill really say "we've slaughtered the wrong pig" in 1945 (as claimed by Rod C on last night's PB NightHawks)?tim said:
Looks like Labour has lost the William Joyce vote thenRodCrosby said:
Yes, more of the same, please! A rabble of chancers and narcissists scrabbling for the top job ten minutes after becoming an MP.HYUFD said:Rod - Except for Chuka, who is now the true 'heir to Blair' apparently!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b2e9e3a6-ef46-11e2-bb27-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ZYhZXKkZ
Labour - not fit to manage a bus stop...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=179239
http://viennanet.info/polemics/churchill
I was shocked to find that it's a phrase used by Third Reich revisionists, shocked.
It also appears in at least one scholarly work.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJDo96sHGa8C&pg=PA22&dq=churchill+wrong++pig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qPnqUY_1DMTo7Aad_YDgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pig&f=false
You will never catch me out by using the methods of Goebbels, tim.
Or at all...0 -
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:RodCrosby said:
Irony? He was one of my best students!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Irony in mentioning the name Goebbels, Rod?RodCrosby said:
So they read it in a document published by the Mises Institute, like I and countless others did... Anyone can use the internet, I believe...tim said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did Churchill really say "we've slaughtered the wrong pig" in 1945 (as claimed by Rod C on last night's PB NightHawks)?tim said:
Looks like Labour has lost the William Joyce vote thenRodCrosby said:
Yes, more of the same, please! A rabble of chancers and narcissists scrabbling for the top job ten minutes after becoming an MP.HYUFD said:Rod - Except for Chuka, who is now the true 'heir to Blair' apparently!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b2e9e3a6-ef46-11e2-bb27-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ZYhZXKkZ
Labour - not fit to manage a bus stop...
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=179239
http://viennanet.info/polemics/churchill
I was shocked to find that it's a phrase used by Third Reich revisionists, shocked.
It also appears in at least one scholarly work.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJDo96sHGa8C&pg=PA22&dq=churchill+wrong++pig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qPnqUY_1DMTo7Aad_YDgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pig&f=false
You will never catch me out by using the methods of Goebbels, tim.
Or at all...
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
0 -
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Wait a minute... Churchill by Himself ??
Now who said "History will be kind to me... for I intend to write it..."?
0 -
While I would like to be in self-exile, I have in fact been at work experience in London all week at a large law firm. (We won though, didn't we?!)
Anyway, NickP etc, the problem lies for most people in accurately characterising the error in the first place - most significantly, the difference between ensuring the sample is representative of the population and turning their responses into a nowcast. [Edit: and a nowcast won't give you a forecast, that's another thing that can be confused.]0 -
Montana? LOL!RodCrosby said:
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
And what was his source?0 -
The Churchill Centre responded to a question:
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we
fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he
often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.")
Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another."
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/images/finesthour/Vol.01 No.130.pdf
There is also (similarly sourced) the calumny that when Churchill visited Lusitania at Liverpool (no such visit recorded) that he described her as "20,000 tons of live bait " - later using her as a trap to drag the Americans into WWI - when at the time it was in Britain's national interest that the Americns stay out of the war so their factories could carry on supplying Britain - not stockpiling munitions for themselves - as happened when they eventually entered the war...0 -
Yes, you know Montana, it borders Canada to the north, Wyoming to the south.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Montana? LOL!RodCrosby said:
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
And what was his source?
here's his address
http://www.montana.edu/wwwhi/2010/FacultyWebPages/History/Large.html
His students seem to like him
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=3905970 -
Indeed - some claim Churchill said it in the HoC on 2 Nov 1946 - but since that was a Saturday that may be unlikely....Sunil_Prasannan said:
Montana? LOL!RodCrosby said:
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
And what was his source?0 -
Not exactly a rebuttal then. Anyhow, the point is I offered it in good faith from sources other than alleged "revisionist" websites.CarlottaVance said:The Churchill Centre responded to a question:
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we
fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he
often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.")
Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another."
.0 -
Unfortunately the google book does not list the primary source for his quote - and since some of the other sources cite a Saturday sitting in the HoC as the source, you'll understand why I remain sceptical.RodCrosby said:
Not exactly a rebuttal then. Anyhow, the point is I offered it in good faith from sources other than alleged "revisionist" websites.CarlottaVance said:The Churchill Centre responded to a question:
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we
fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he
often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.")
Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another."
.
0 -
RIP Mel Smith.
I knew him very well at Oxford, when he was President of OUDS and I was Technical Director.
It was obvious even then that he was an extraordinary talent.0 -
Conspiracy theory?
No, valid historical question. And Churchill did make it clear what his objective was, whether or not the Lusy was actually his handiwork...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html
0 -
What were his primary source(s) for the alleged quote?RodCrosby said:
Yes, you know Montana, it borders Canada to the north, Wyoming to the south.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Montana? LOL!RodCrosby said:
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
And what was his source?
here's his address
http://www.montana.edu/wwwhi/2010/FacultyWebPages/History/Large.html
His students seem to like him
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=390597
You do realise we're treading on apocryphal MacMillan "Events, dear boy! Events!" territory here?0 -
Lusitania came to grief two whole years before the US entered WW1...RodCrosby said:Conspiracy theory?
No, valid historical question. And Churchill did make it clear what his objective was, whether or not the Lusy was actually his handiwork...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html0 -
You're safer in Montana - it was known at the time that the Remington bullets were onboard - and the idea that they "exploded" and sank the ship in 18 minutes is farcical - much more likely was a catastrophic failure of her high pressure steam system - further, the idea that Churchill (then up to hi neck in Galipoli) was micromanaging the western approaches to put the worlds second fastest liner in harms way is, frankly, deluded.RodCrosby said:Conspiracy theory?
No, valid historical question. And Churchill did make it clear what his objective was, whether or not the Lusy was actually his handiwork...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html
0 -
My my. Quite an expert on the Lusitania, aren't you?CarlottaVance said:
You're safer in Montana - it was known at the time that the Remington bullets were onboard - and the idea that they "exploded" and sank the ship in 18 minutes is farcical - much more likely was a catastrophic failure of her high pressure steam system - further, the idea that Churchill (then up to hi neck in Galipoli) was micromanaging the western approaches to put the worlds second fastest liner in harms way is, frankly, deluded.RodCrosby said:Conspiracy theory?
No, valid historical question. And Churchill did make it clear what his objective was, whether or not the Lusy was actually his handiwork...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html
Riddle me this. Who was it who withdrew the cruiser escort that was supposed to be waiting for the Lusy off Queenstown? Who was it who lied that the Germans fired two or three torpedoes, when they knew within hours (from code intercepts) that they had only fired one? Who was it who tried to frame Captain Turner for responsibility for the sinking? What was in the 3800 "boxes of cheese" aboard Lusy that were destined for the Naval Research Station at Shoeburyness?
This scholarly webpage may add to your knowledge.
http://www.lusitania.net/deadlycargo.htm0 -
Iain Martin in the Telegraph - As the Tories head off for the summer, the system still favours Labour0
-
More than you, evidently. The website of a book that cites discredited or innaccurate sources is hardly provides much confidence. If you are interested, I suggest you read Diana Preston's "Wilful Murder" - for a detailed analysis of many of the conspiracy theories.RodCrosby said:
My my. Quite an expert on the Lusitania, aren't you?CarlottaVance said:
You're safer in Montana - it was known at the time that the Remington bullets were onboard - and the idea that they "exploded" and sank the ship in 18 minutes is farcical - much more likely was a catastrophic failure of her high pressure steam system - further, the idea that Churchill (then up to hi neck in Galipoli) was micromanaging the western approaches to put the worlds second fastest liner in harms way is, frankly, deluded.RodCrosby said:Conspiracy theory?
No, valid historical question. And Churchill did make it clear what his objective was, whether or not the Lusy was actually his handiwork...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html
0 -
The Tories didn't smear, they were disgusted that Labour intentionally ignored complaints about poor hospital care, in order to avoid negative publicity. Labour were and are all about spin. The Tories told the truth.tim said:@fitalass
@gdnpoliticswire: NHS chief says sorry to Andy Burnham for Tory 'smear' campaign http://t.co/HW6aO8YTCx
0 -
Lusitania conspiracy
,BROADER ASPECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY THESIS
Beyond the direct evidence contradicting the conspiracy thesis is the extremely dubious logic of any such plot, resting as it would on the assumption that the liner and the U-boat could be steered into each other and that the sinking of a British liner would result inevitably in a U.S. declaration of war on Germany. Winston Churchill would have been extremely naive about both the temperament of Woodrow Wilson and the state of U.S. military preparedness to have any such notion. Not only did the United States not come close to war with Germany in the aftermath of the disaster, but it would be difficult even to demonstrate that LUSITANIA set in motion an inexorable slide toward war; U.S. relations with the Allies and the Central Powers did not follow a linear course after May 1915, and in fact in late 1916 Washington's relations with the Allies were worse than they had been at any time since the start of the war."
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika04.htm0 -
@Perdix, that link isn't working, but well worth reading the article. Truly a classic of the genre.
Guardian - NHS chief says sorry to Andy Burnham for Tory 'smear' campaignperdix said:
The Tories didn't smear, they were disgusted that Labour intentionally ignored complaints about poor hospital care, in order to avoid negative publicity. Labour were and are all about spin. The Tories told the truth.tim said:@fitalass
@gdnpoliticswire: NHS chief says sorry to Andy Burnham for Tory 'smear' campaign http://t.co/HW6aO8YTCx0 -
Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."0 -
‘I mentioned patients 19 times, Burnham mentioned them twice. That sums up the difference between usfitalass said:
0 -
-
Your term, not mine. Why would the Lusitania benefit by being escorted by a slower destroyer that would also rob her of her mercantile status?RodCrosby said:Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."0 -
Despite the many media appearances Burnham under took last week, it was quite striking how little he focussed on the patients who had been let down by the NHS.CarlottaVance said:
‘I mentioned patients 19 times, Burnham mentioned them twice. That sums up the difference between usfitalass said:0 -
There's no VI in the Sunday Times, all they've published so far is some polling on Crosby, and it pretty bad for Dave and the Tories
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%0 -
I've just come up with one of my own:RodCrosby said:Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."0 -
Dont be so modest - it's mainly down to your posts here.tim said:
The public seem to have sussed Dave don't they.TheScreamingEagles said:There's no VI in the Sunday Times, all they've published so far is some polling on Crosby, and it pretty bad for Dave and the Tories
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%
Sweaty and evasive TV performances haven't helped0 -
Only 25% of the public believes the government when it says it wants more evidence on plain packaging.0
-
Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures0 -
Nah, the public are looking for the Factor 50 cream or Calamine lotion....tim said:
The public seem to have sussed Dave don't they.TheScreamingEagles said:There's no VI in the Sunday Times, all they've published so far is some polling on Crosby, and it pretty bad for Dave and the Tories
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%
Sweaty and evasive TV performances haven't helped
0 -
Entirely, I'd have said.....Neil said:
Dont be so modest - it's mainly down to your posts here.tim said:
The public seem to have sussed Dave don't they.TheScreamingEagles said:There's no VI in the Sunday Times, all they've published so far is some polling on Crosby, and it pretty bad for Dave and the Tories
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%
Sweaty and evasive TV performances haven't helped
0 -
Nah, this is just knee-jerk anti-politician sentiment. You'd get it if you asked about any industry influencing government and so on. People generally don't trust lobbyists, political advisers and politicians themselves, but this stuff doesn't stick that much to individual sides and cases. If you put a poll in the field asking about Adam Werrity you'd find no-one remembers who he is. Crosby's negatives will blow over and voters will return to the 'plague on all your houses' position long before the next election.tim said:
The public seem to have sussed Dave don't they.TheScreamingEagles said:There's no VI in the Sunday Times, all they've published so far is some polling on Crosby, and it pretty bad for Dave and the Tories
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%
Sweaty and evasive TV performances haven't helped0 -
'Hunt says he has seen for himself how the NHS can fail the elderly.
‘I was at an A&E unit doing a shift with the staff, helping with odd jobs, when they admitted a woman with dementia in her 90s. She had come from a care home, yet they didn’t know a thing about her.'
If only Burnham had got off his lazy backside he might have had a clue what was going on.0 -
it could quite easily be up vs Friday's 5 but down vs last Sunday's 11..TheScreamingEagles said:Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures
0 -
Len McClusky has marginally gone up in my estimation - a notch beyond boring...0
-
Eagles, they are just teasing you as they know you stay up on a Saturday waiting for these poll numbers for PB.TheScreamingEagles said:
Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures0 -
Ed Miliband reveals that he was at Headingley in 1977 as a seven year old when Geoff Boycott scored his hundredth hundred:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01d1zx00 -
It is the second weekend in a row that they've not published the VI figures.fitalass said:Eagles, they are just teasing you as they know you stay up on a Saturday waiting for these poll numbers for PB.
TheScreamingEagles said:Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures
It is so frustrating.
Only marginally less frustrating than when they spread their VI figures and supplementaries across ten different articles as they did a few months ago.
They should really be aware of how important their poll is to OGH and pbers.0 -
I'm impressed by Ed being a cricket fan at the age of seven. I didn't take any interest in the game until I was eleven.0
-
Sounds a bit like the polling equivalent of a dance of the seven veils.TheScreamingEagles said:
It is the second weekend in a row that they've not published the VI figures.fitalass said:Eagles, they are just teasing you as they know you stay up on a Saturday waiting for these poll numbers for PB.
TheScreamingEagles said:Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures
It is so frustrating.
Only marginally less frustrating than when they spread their VI figures and supplementaries across ten different articles as they did a few months ago.
They should really be aware of how important their poll is to OGH and pbers.0 -
Japan tells Britain to stay in the EU:
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/japan-urges-britain-to-stay-in-eu-8723465.html0 -
Blair saying he saw Wor Jackie play is a mythjohn_zims said:@AndyJS
Ed's Jackie Milburn moment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7749778.stm0 -
Guardian - Real IRA bomb plotter Larry Keane found murdered in Ireland
"His death came in the same week that another Real IRA bomber, Seamus McKenna, was buried in his native Co Louth near the border. McKenna had been named in a civil action taken by families of the Omagh victims who accused him of transporting the Real IRA bomb to the Co Tyrone market town in August 1998. He died from injuries after falling from the roof of a school in Dundalk last week but was kept alive on a life support machine until his organs could be donated."0 -
Like Carlotta I suspect YG is somewhere between 5 and 11 - the 5 looked dodgy as it was accompanied by several sudden shifts in secondaries for no obvious reason, and the 11 looked out of line for the same reason. Polls that shift VI while leaving secondaries fairly stable are credible, as are polls which have secondary movements that make sense - say a shift on health either way following all the health debates. But when most of the secondaries suddenly shift together it's probably a dud sample.
0 -
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...GeoffM said:
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.Andy_JS said:Japan tells Britain to stay in the EU:
0 -
Forget Burnham for a minute. Look at what Hunt is saying. Do you detect his wistful longing for a national database of personal health records, with shared access for (non-NHS) care homes? Can you say "failed IT project" that was scrapped (or was it?) by Lansley?john_zims said:'Hunt says he has seen for himself how the NHS can fail the elderly.
‘I was at an A&E unit doing a shift with the staff, helping with odd jobs, when they admitted a woman with dementia in her 90s. She had come from a care home, yet they didn’t know a thing about her.'
If only Burnham had got off his lazy backside he might have had a clue what was going on.0 -
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?Neil said:
I've just come up with one of my own:RodCrosby said:Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
Better tell this long-serving liberal German foreign minister that he's wrong, also. And prejudiced. And a conspiracy theorist.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International Affairs/2012/88_6/88_6Interview.pdf
And of course, these guys are prejudiced, non-mainstream, revisionists and conspiracy theorists.
http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/74.short
Roll on the glorious 12th. I fancy some grouse shooting. I'm getting bored with blasting the turkeys of PB...0 -
@edmundintokyo That's how I read it as well - or rather as a general request for comments from foreigners. That struck me as a particularly limp-wristed (and therefore typically FCO) way of doing things. In the good old days we'd have just got on with doing what we decided was best by ourselves.
I suppose given our own habit of telling other countries how to run their internal affairs we shouldn't be too surprised when someone returns the 'favour'.0 -
I don't think it's particularly the FCO. The whole review is a displacement activity to make the the sceptics think something's happening without actually committing to anything.GeoffM said:@edmundintokyo That's how I read it as well - or rather as a general request for comments from foreigners. That struck me as a particularly limp-wristed (and therefore typically FCO) way of doing things. In the good old days we'd have just got on with doing what we decided was best by ourselves.
0 -
Don't know what all the fuss is about, the US has already indicated that they would like us to stay in the EU, and now the Japanese have now followed suit. Its the UK media summer season.edmundintokyo said:
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...GeoffM said:
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.Andy_JS said:Japan tells Britain to stay in the EU:
0 -
The Montana guy doesn't provide a primary source for the alleged Churchill quote in the Google Book snippet you quoted...RodCrosby said:
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?Neil said:
I've just come up with one of my own:RodCrosby said:Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
Better tell this long-serving liberal German foreign minister that he's wrong, also. And prejudiced. And a conspiracy theorist.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International Affairs/2012/88_6/88_6Interview.pdf
And of course, these guys are prejudiced, non-mainstream, revisionists and conspiracy theorists.
http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/74.short
Roll on the glorious 12th. I fancy some grouse shooting. I'm getting bored with blasting the turkeys of PB...0 -
Look up the underwater speed of a WW1 U-boat and tell me again that HMS Juno (she was a cruiser, not a destroyer) was "slow".CarlottaVance said:
Your term, not mine. Why would the Lusitania benefit by being escorted by a slower destroyer that would also rob her of her mercantile status?
Sub-clause this or that of the Hague convention don't have much practical application "in the field." Juno could have escorted Lusy without technically 'escorting' her...
Remember: Britannia waives the rules! ;-)0 -
I'm sure the US would love us telling them they were wrong to break away in 1776?fitalass said:Don't know what all the fuss is about, the US has already indicated that they would like us to stay in the EU, and now the Japanese have now followed suit. Its the UK media summer season.
edmundintokyo said:
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...GeoffM said:
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.Andy_JS said:Japan tells Britain to stay in the EU:
0 -
Juno's top speed was 18.5 kt. Lusitania 22 kt, even with only three of four boiler rooms in use at the time of her loss.RodCrosby said:
Look up the underwater speed of of a WW1 U-boat and tell me again that HMS Juno (she was a cruiser, not a destroyer) was "slow".CarlottaVance said:
Your term, not mine. Why would the Lusitania benefit by being escorted by a slower destroyer that would also rob her of her mercantile status?
Sub-clause this or that of the Hague convention don't have much practical application "in the field." Juno could have escorted Lusy without technically 'escorting' her...
Remember: Britannia waives the rules! ;-)0 -
The reference to speed was the Lusitania relative to the (protected) cruiser, not the cruiser relative to the submarine.RodCrosby said:Look up the underwater speed of of a WW1 U-boat and tell me again that HMS Juno (she was a cruiser, not a destroyer) was "slow".
What, sort of lurk in the shadows with her collar turned up? Avoid the streetlights? Hide behind the dustbins?RodCrosby said:Juno could have escorted Lusy without technically 'escorting' her...
0 -
Sunil, got to love the Americans. They fought for Independence, and yet they now avidly follow our Royal family to the extent that they are mobbed when they visit the USA.
In the Loop - Malcolm Tucker visits the White House
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLIP0ZtoiO4Sunil_Prasannan said:
I'm sure the US would love us telling them they were wrong to break away in 1776?fitalass said:Don't know what all the fuss is about, the US has already indicated that they would like us to stay in the EU, and now the Japanese have now followed suit. Its the UK media summer season.
edmundintokyo said:
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...GeoffM said:
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.Andy_JS said:Japan tells Britain to stay in the EU:
0 -
He does. But just assume he got it from Stormfront, if it gives you an orgasm...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Montana guy doesn't provide a primary source for the alleged Churchill quote in the Google Book snippet you quoted...RodCrosby said:
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?Neil said:
I've just come up with one of my own:RodCrosby said:Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
Better tell this long-serving liberal German foreign minister that he's wrong, also. And prejudiced. And a conspiracy theorist.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International Affairs/2012/88_6/88_6Interview.pdf
And of course, these guys are prejudiced, non-mainstream, revisionists and conspiracy theorists.
http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/74.short
Roll on the glorious 12th. I fancy some grouse shooting. I'm getting bored with blasting the turkeys of PB...0 -
I'm done chasing phantoms and the terminally obtuse for tonight...
Ciao. Something vaguely interesting is stirring in the room next door. I must go and pay her some attention...0 -
-
0
-
(From Previous Thread)
I got 55% on the "Are you Muslim?" questionnaire. But, as is common with a lot of such questionnaires, there is a fairly badly-hidden hidden-agenda - as is obvious from the badly-worded questions, leading questions, and questions with an assumed premise. I was unhappy with at least half of the questions and was not satisfied that any of the answer options was an accurate one for my views.
It reminds me of an "Are you liberal?" questionnaire I did once, where the first question asked me if there should be a flat-rate of income tax. I said "no". Even without waiting until the end of the questionnaire, and before going to question 2, it lectured me on the illiberality of stealing money from people's incomes, and effectively accused me of being illiberal on the basis of an answer I did not give to a question which I was not asked.
But anyway, today is what would have been Bill Pertwee's 87th birthday. I remember this fact because today is my father's 87th birthday.0 -
I have vague memories of the 1961 Ashes, I was only 5. Another 2 years on... I used to calculate averages the old fashioned way. I now realise my parents secretly encouraged me.Andy_JS said:I'm impressed by Ed being a cricket fan at the age of seven. I didn't take any interest in the game until I was eleven.
0 -
I have some great photos of my ancestors when they worked on the Highland railways many years ago. I just finally caught up with Three Men Go to Scotland series this week, it was excellent. Especially the Isle of Jura visit, its a shame that they missed a trip to Islay.
old_labour said:0
-
What is it? The Sàturday sitting of the House of Commons?RodCrosby said:
He does. But just assume he got it from Stormfront, if it gives you an orgasm...Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Montana guy doesn't provide a primary source for the alleged Churchill quote in the Google Book snippet you quoted...RodCrosby said:
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?Neil said:
I've just come up with one of my own:RodCrosby said:Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
Better tell this long-serving liberal German foreign minister that he's wrong, also. And prejudiced. And a conspiracy theorist.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International Affairs/2012/88_6/88_6Interview.pdf
And of course, these guys are prejudiced, non-mainstream, revisionists and conspiracy theorists.
http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/74.short
Roll on the glorious 12th. I fancy some grouse shooting. I'm getting bored with blasting the turkeys of PB...0 -
@RodCrosby:
"Stürmer: He is supposed to have said.
Genscher: Supposed? In all probability he did."
Neither what you'd call primary sources, nor ringing endorsements.....0 -
-
Latest YouGov/The Sunday Times results 19th July - Con 32%, Lab 39%, LD 10%, UKIP 11%; APP -330
-
YouGov
Leaders:well/badly{
DC: -18 (+6)
EdM: -35(0)
NC: -51(+2)
Coalition:-33(+4)0 -
Poor question from YouGov on cigarettes, asking whether people support "banning brightly coloured branding and packaging for cigarettes". Apart from the fact no packaging currently does have bright colours...0
-
So Labour lead Cons on NHS by 29-19 (hardly an endorsement of either) and 31-21 on improving standards but 0nly 27-23 on sound finances/good value.
From the high number of plague-on-both houses, I would tentatively suggest that is a modest plus for the blues (depending on what previous polling has found).0 -
Buses? I like trains!old_labour said:0
