Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

READ YOUR POST ABOVE. 44335.

It was 23 Friday.

Youve been caught out, just like on advfn.

Your taking after the Tory Cheats and liars

This what I wrote

"If you look carefully, you will see that it hasn't been updated since 23 July. It doesn't even show Friday's lead of 3 and not today of 1."

Wednesday was 23 July. It is 27 July today!

But it does show todays lead of 1 its at the very top of the page 27 July 2014, you are either a liar or are intoxicated in some way.

Stop the fudging Hays YOUVE BEEN CAUGHT.

The present fighting in Gaza started because of Hamas's reaction to Israel arresting more than 300 people in their search for three 'kidnapped' Israeli settlers teenagers.

The Israeli government knew the same day that they had been killed and not kidnapped. Their phone call to the police contained gunshots and the car was found with blood in it. They let the Israeli public believe in the kidnapping theory to incite the Israeli public. Then they went house to house in the West Bank arresting more than 300 Hamas supporters. It is not surprising that Hamas responded with rocket fire. Israel took advantage of the incident to start a new war.

Hamas denied the kidnapping and Israel has now admitted that it was not Hamas but a rogue group.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html

The motivation for all this conflict and the escalation is because Hamas and Fatah formed a unity government that represented Gaza and the West Bank. That happened a couple of days before the kidnap. It is the reason why Hamas would not have done the kidnapping because they were trying a non aggressive approach.

The only party to benefit from the kidnap/killing is Israel itself. It makes you wonder if Israel intelligence killed the teens. The other odd thing is why would they be killed? There is nothing to be gained by the killing. The Palestinians have always held people in that situation as they can use them as bargaining chips for prisoner swaps.

gf
It does show the lead of 1, but they did not update the majority figure every day. For some reason the majority figure is usually out of sync with the poll publishing. I think they do it to even out the trends. Otherwise the majority figure would change every day. In fact it changes about once a week.

Fudging again Hays, youve had your ass kicked,the majority was 23 on Friday
it is now 44.

Todays overal figure has been updated taking into account last weeks polls, it is always updated at the weekend.

Everyone can tell youve been telling porkies just by clicking on the link.

Its people like you that get a bad name for the Tories who by in large are very decent people. I myself would probably be voting Tory but not with the Eton crowd in charge lying at every turn and twist.

What a shambles the party is in.

No, it has been 44 for a few days. You can easily see the date it was updated. I will keep a record now so that you can more easily understand.

Your a liar or a drunk.

Youve been caught with your hands in the till.

And Ill be keeping a record now of YOUR posts so that YOU can see how youve lied and you can more easily understand that YOU need help. ......................and very quickly.

Some of the promises the Tories are trying to delete from the internet


Some of the promises the Tories are trying to delete from the internet:

1. No cuts to front-line services.

2. “We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT”.

3. Cameron said “I wouldn’t means-test child benefit”.

4. “No more top-down reorganisations of the NHS”.

5. On Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA): “We don’t have any plans to get rid of them”.

6. Cameron on Sure Start: “Yes we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this”.

7. On the Future Jobs Fund: “We have no plans to change it”.

8. Cameron on green taxes: “[They] need to go up”.

9. Osborne on bank bonuses: “Totally unacceptable”.

10. And finally, Cameron’s commentary on transparency in 2007: “It’s clear to me that political leaders will have to learn to let go. Let go of the information we have guarded so jealously”.

So, it will be won/lost in the marginals, as usual.

The problem is, what do you call a marginal when you can get huge swing votes from people who have had a enough of the present offerings ie. lib/lab/con ?


None of the big three exactly come across as "the real deal"

MaxK - 27 Jul 2014 19:37 - 44370 of 44372

None of the big three exactly come across as "the real deal"

There aren't a big 'three'. The UK operates a two-party system. It might pretend to operate a multi-party system, but it doesn't. It has always operated a two-party system, and it will continue to operate a two-party system all the time that first past the post voting is used. And because a two-party system has been allowed to exist, there now isn't any hope of the constitutional change which would introduce the proportional representation voting which would allow a true multi-party system to develop. It's a Catch 22.

Garage and Clegg can bang on till the cows come home about their political influence, but the simple truth is they have no influence whatsoever. They're both political ideologists who need to smell the coffee and get a grip on reality.

If you don't believe me, try Googling Duverger's law.

Ukip voters will make Ed Miliband Prime Minister, Labour claims

If just nine per cent of voters support Ukip then Ed Miliband will become prime minister, according to Labour researchers.



By James Kirkup10:00PM BST 27 Jul 2014

Ed Miliband will become prime minister if Ukip wins more than nine per cent of the vote in next year’s general election, Labour advisers have calculated.
Mr Miliband’s strategists have calculated that a significant vote for the Eurosceptic party will cost the Conservatives enough seats to put Labour in office, The Telegraph has learnt.
Senior Labour figures say that, despite losses to Ukip in recent local elections, Mr Miliband’s team believe their party has a lot to gain from its advances and the final result in May’s general election may hinge on how Mr Farage's party performs.
Ukip took three per cent of the vote in 2010, but has since seen its polling figures soar. It took 27 per cent in the European elections, and is at about 13 per cent in current opinion polls.
Polling by Lord Ashcroft, a Tory peer, has shown that of those people who backed Ukip in this year’s European elections, 52 per cent had voted Conservative in 2010. Only 15 per cent were former Labour voters.

Labour sources say the party’s private polling suggests a similar split, leading Mr Miliband’s team to conclude that Ukip is a bigger threat to the Tories than Labour.
“The Tories lose a lot more than we do from a decent Ukip performance,” said a senior Labour campaign source. “The whole election could hang on how many of their current voters stick with them next May.”
Some Opposition figures, including Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, and Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, have called for the party to take a tougher line on Ukip, fearing that Mr Farage’s party will eat into Labour’s traditional working-class vote.
But others involved in the Labour election campaign have persuaded Mr Miliband that Ukip gains are good for Labour’s prospects.
Another Lord Ashcroft poll last week showed that Ukip was performing well enough in marginal constituencies to take at least two Commons seats, Thurrock and South Thanet, both currently held by the Tories.
Senior Conservatives admit privately that winning back a significant number of today’s Ukip supporters is a “strategic priority” for them.
Lynton Crosby, the Conservatives’ polling adviser, has told colleagues that Ukip voters could be divided into three distinct groups: “natural” Tories who would return to the party next year; waverers who could be persuaded to return, and a smaller group of irreconcilables who were permanently lost to the Conservatives.
Some Tory strategists believe that the best way to win back wavering Ukip supporters is by warning them that a vote for Mr Farage’s party helps Labour.
As a response to that argument, Mr Farage has been talking up Ukip’s ability to take votes away from Labour, highlighting his party’s gains in Labour areas.
Earlier this month, the Ukip leader proposed a deal with the Tories in which the Conservatives would agree not to contest working-class marginals where he claimed Ukip could defeat Labour. In exchange, Ukip would not run candidates in more affluent Tory-held seats.
Without such a deal, Mr Farage said a solid Ukip vote among working-class voters meant “there are a number of seats here that [Conservatives] probably aren’t going to win but that Labour probably is going to win.”
Some senior Ukip figures have even suggested that their party could cost the Tories enough seats – and win enough of their own – to end up holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament in a close election.
A ComRes poll in May commissioned by Ukip donor Paul Sykes found that 37 per cent of Ukip voters said that they were “certain” to support the party at the general election. Another 49 per cent said that they were “likely” to do so.
The British Election Study, an academic project, found in May that more than half of people, 57.6 per cent, intending to vote for UKIP in this year’s European Parliament election intend to stick with the party in the 2015 general election. The proportion was half that number at 25.5 per cent in 2009.
The prospect of losing seats to Labour because of Ukip has added to Conservative fears over the current constituency boundaries, which Tories argue are slanted against them because the urban seats where Labour traditionally wins are smaller than Tory strongholds in the suburbs and countryside.
That means Labour needs fewer votes nationwide to win enough Commons seats for a majority.
The Conservatives attempted to redraw the boundaries in 2011 but we’re thwarted by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
An all-Tory Government would make a fresh attempt to redraw the boundaries soon after taking office, party sources have said.

gf, I think Hilary has hit the nail on the head with #44373.

The problem tho is that there is next to no difference between the cons and nulab.

Regardless of which of the two get back in, it will be business as usual...decline!


I've had enough of the same old bollox, so I'm going to try something different.

If it fails, so what, I will be no worse off....But should it succeed in breaking up the cozy consensus, then we might have a chance.

if labour are standing up to say that ukip will get them into power rather than their own policies and leadership, it tells you plenty

Hilary is right. For many years, the Libs have been the party of protest. The new reality is that the protest vote has become fragmented. The current suspects are Greens, UKIP and Libs. They may poll at high levels during a parliament, but fall back to protest levels in the GE.

We are lucky to have a first past the post system. Countries that have a different system are constantly held hostage to crazy coalition partners. Constant coalitions inhibit legislation, water down reform and have a tendency to extremism.

Labour may say all sorts about UKIP giving them victory, but there is a good US political slogan, "If you are explaining, you are losing".

Yep Cyners, you mean like the 24 Tory back benches with small majoritys who wanted to do a deal with UKIP so they could remain in power, yep bud your totaly right.

UKIP polling between 17% and 13% in the polls labour looking for just 9%(thats a net figure aswel), looks like Labour will win with a small majority, and UKIP will certainly have at least 1 seat.

Max said.......

MaxK - 28 Jul 2014 10:06 - 44375 of 44379

gf,

The problem tho is that there is next to no difference between the cons and nulab............ENDS

Sorry Max no I disagree thats what Lynton Crosby and the Tories want the electorate to believe, theirs a massive difference between the 2 partys and you will see it once the parties publish their manifestos.

Labour for instance are going to go for rather than a income tax system of raising tax to an asset system of raising tax over a gradual period.