- Government’s first duty to protect the citizenry
- Unequivocal freedom of speech
- Border control Fiscal responsibility
- The state as servant, not master
- The law applied without fear or favour
- Low taxes
- An end to grooming gangs & their cover-ups
- A robust response to charlatan wokery
- Economic stability before Green virtue-signalling
jueves, 4 de julio de 2024
Opposition opening...
lunes, 30 de noviembre de 2020
Oval Office onslaught II...
Just a follow-up really to the previous post and to the mass of red flags; “the mass of red flags already raised in the 2020 POTUS election is getting to banana republic proportions.” And to the Five More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms [The Federalist] “Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.” …yep. Sadly, expected though, in the UK we have the same problem.
More on The American Spectator from Patrick Basham, Director of The Democracy Institute: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.
"To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what."It is an eye-opening read about many of the red flags; I have summarised, quoted, emphasised, edited slightly or paraphrased:
President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election.
Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him.
He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960.
Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent.
Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Only once since 1852 has a candidate lost after winning this trio (in 1960; John F. Kennedy's victory is still the subject of great suspicion).
Biden’s black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties…yet somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained many seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and made gains at the state level.
Non-polling metrics: party registrations trends/ primary votes/ candidate enthusiasm/ social media followings/ broadcast and digital media ratings/ online searches/ the number of small donors/ the number of individuals betting on each candidate. These metrics have a 100% percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s re-election. For Trump… to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time…
In the article there follows a list of peculiarities, which also lack ‘compelling explanations’, including: many swing states stopped counting ballots and/or continued without the observers; statistically abnormal vote counts (spikes) were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.
Late arriving ballots were counted/ impossible or extraordinary postal return dates (over 100k votes in PA alone in this category). The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, historically low absentee ballot rejection rates; missing votes/ voting machine USB cards. Non-resident voters: in Georgia alone, this category alone is larger than Biden’s winning vote margin. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases…
Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.
Yet the MSM both sides of the Atlantic play dumb, insist on calling Biden “President-elect”, erroneously, and just play on The Donald’s inability to accept defeat. This is sinsiter and evil.
[edit 11:51] From the Federalist link above and underlining one of the anomalies in the non-polling metrics: "In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in
predicting general election winners"... "no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election"... President Trump "received 94 percent of the primary vote"... ... and at the same time "set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent", in fact that was almost DOUBLE the previous high.
"For Biden to
prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the
primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head."
Like I said, sinister and evil and yet most of the world's media is singing la-la-la with its collective hands over its ears.
Oval Office onslaught II...
Just a follow-up really to the previous post and to the mass of red flags; “the mass of red flags already raised in the 2020 POTUS election is getting to banana republic proportions.” And to the Five More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms [The Federalist] “Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.” …yep. Sadly, expected though, in the UK we have the same problem.
More on The American Spectator from Patrick Basham, Director of The Democracy Institute: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.
"To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what."It is an eye-opening read about many of the red flags; I have summarised, quoted, emphasised, edited slightly or paraphrased:
President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Only once since 1852 has a candidate lost after winning this trio (in 1960; John F. Kennedy's victory is still the subject of great suspicion).
Biden’s black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties…yet somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained many seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and made gains at the state level.
Non-polling metrics: party registrations trends/ primary votes/ candidate enthusiasm/ social media followings/ broadcast and digital media ratings/ online searches/ the number of small donors/ the number of individuals betting on each candidate. These metrics have a 100% percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s re-election. For Trump… to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time…
In the article there follows a list of peculiarities, which also lack ‘compelling explanations’, including: many swing states stopped counting ballots and/or continued without the observers; statistically abnormal vote counts (spikes) were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.
Late arriving ballots were counted/ impossible or extraordinary postal return dates (over 100k votes in PA alone in this category). The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, historically low absentee ballot rejection rates; missing votes/ voting machine USB cards. Non-resident voters: in Georgia alone, this category alone is larger than Biden’s winning vote margin. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases… Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.
Yet the MSM both sides of the Atlantic play dumb, insist on calling Biden “President-elect”, erroneously, and just play on The Donald’s inability to accept defeat. This is sinsiter and evil.
[edit 11:51] From the Federalist link above and underlining one of the anomalies in the non-polling metrics: "In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in predicting general election winners"... "no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election"... President Trump "received 94 percent of the primary vote"... ... and at the same time "set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent", in fact that was almost DOUBLE the previous high.
"For Biden to prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head."Like I said, sinister and evil and yet most of the world's media is singing la-la-la with its collective hands over its ears.
viernes, 17 de enero de 2020
Ouch! Obvious objections...
Patently obvious but STILL being ignored by ALL the Labour Party leadership candidates. Nearly three-quarters of YOUR voters, asked in a YouGov poll, who switched to The Conservative Party say it is you - the party - "who left them" (first graph) clearly Brexit being the major factor; NONE of the candidates have fully admitted this yet; it is really so obvious. So obvious in fact (2nd graph) that there was only 3% "Don't Knows" in the poll for the question of "Why?"Amazing. Equally incredible (3rd graph) that 90% of these voters had an unfavourable (or somewhat unfavourable) opinion of Jeremy Corby. Graphs below from first YouGov (Twitter), then The Times (sign up) and last but by no means least, Guido.
Ouch! Obvious objections...
Patently obvious but STILL being ignored by ALL the Labour Party leadership candidates. Nearly three-quarters of YOUR voters, asked in a YouGov poll, who switched to The Conservative Party say it is you - the party - "who left them" (first graph) clearly Brexit being the major factor; NONE of the candidates have fully admitted this yet; it is really so obvious. So obvious in fact (2nd graph) that there was only 3% "Don't Knows" in the poll for the question of "Why?"Amazing. Equally incredible (3rd graph) that 90% of these voters had an unfavourable (or somewhat unfavourable) opinion of Jeremy Corby. Graphs below from first YouGov (Twitter), then The Times (sign up) and last but by no means least, Guido.
domingo, 5 de enero de 2020
Objurgating obvious obfuscation...
Back to the General Election...and why not: Christopher Snowdon commented on Twitter the day before the 2019 General Election that he hoped somebody would look into the 'false looking' ("garbage") statement that "Investigation finds '88% of Tory ads misleading compared to 0% for Labour'".
On the face of it I think most normal people would immediate realise something wasn't right: much of Labour and many of their blinkered followers - usually the most vociferous - seem to spout lies almost eveytime any of them speak (IMHO!) so why would their ads be any different. This week Christopher updated (answered his own Tweet) that "No one ever came back to this factoid so I did it myself." And what a good job he has done too (plus bonus points for correct use of 'factoid' i.e. some 'fact' that is false!): on his blog Velvet Glove, Iron Fist he lays out a full and fair account showing that the "investigation" is obviously wrong, their interpretations flawed and their methodology quite ridiculous. I say 'fair' as he highlights possibly misleading statements from both parties plus (amazingly) both The Guardian and the BBC come out untainted - unlike many lefty luvvies, comedians, commentators and even Labour MPs. And I say 'full' as the blog-post has dozens of examples and doesn't really favour either side, except by the upshot of the whole thing in that the 88% to zero was very clearly fake news designed to help Labour...that went well.
"The idea that 88% of the Conservative adverts were 'lies' is itself a lie, seemingly designed to affect the result of the election as the campaign neared its end. It appears to have been designed to help Labour win and has subsequently been used as an excuse for why it lost."
Objurgating obvious obfuscation...
Back to the General Election...and why not: Christopher Snowdon commented on Twitter the day before the 2019 General Election that he hoped somebody would look into the 'false looking' ("garbage") statement that "Investigation finds '88% of Tory ads misleading compared to 0% for Labour'".
On the face of it I think most normal people would immediate realise something wasn't right: much of Labour and many of their blinkered followers - usually the most vociferous - seem to spout lies almost eveytime any of them speak (IMHO!) so why would their ads be any different. This week Christopher updated (answered his own Tweet) that "No one ever came back to this factoid so I did it myself." And what a good job he has done too (plus bonus points for correct use of 'factoid' i.e. some 'fact' that is false!): on his blog Velvet Glove, Iron Fist he lays out a full and fair account showing that the "investigation" is obviously wrong, their interpretations flawed and their methodology quite ridiculous. I say 'fair' as he highlights possibly misleading statements from both parties plus (amazingly) both The Guardian and the BBC come out untainted - unlike many lefty luvvies, comedians, commentators and even Labour MPs. And I say 'full' as the blog-post has dozens of examples and doesn't really favour either side, except by the upshot of the whole thing in that the 88% to zero was very clearly fake news designed to help Labour...that went well.
"The idea that 88% of the Conservative adverts were 'lies' is itself a lie, seemingly designed to affect the result of the election as the campaign neared its end. It appears to have been designed to help Labour win and has subsequently been used as an excuse for why it lost."
domingo, 15 de diciembre de 2019
Only once: "one-off" offer?...
No need to go into any depth about last week's General Election in the UK. Amazing stuff: the Conservative Party polled 43.6 per cent of the popular vote, which is its highest share since 1979. The Labour Party got 203 seats, the fewest since 1935. CON got 13.96 million votes, compare to Tony Blair in his landslide win in 1997 got 'only' 13.5 million (43.2%). Now, no other parties are in the Top 5:
- John Major 14,093,007 (1992) 41.9%
- Boris Johnson 13,966,451 (2019) 43.6%
- Margaret Thatcher 13,760,935 (1987) 42.2%
- Margaret Thatcher 13,697,923 (1979) 43.9%
- Theresa May 13,667,213 (2017) 42.4%
The above of course are Prime Ministers, this is hard on Clement Attlee in the 1951 GE. [edit] and we all know TM is hardly a Conservative with Major also on the edge and BoJo still to prove himself.
Anyhoo..."The crumbling of the ‘Red Wall’ is the big story of this election and some commentators are describing it as a “one off.” The conventional wisdom is that working class voters have “lent” their votes to the Conservatives and, barring an upset, will give them back next time round. It’s Brexit, supposedly that has been the game-changer—an excuse leapt on by Corbyn’s outriders in the media, who are loathe to blame Labour’s defeat on their man." So writes Toby Young* on Quillette.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember Maggie's extended-thank-God success partly due to 'Mondeo Man', or Blair's slimey manipulations (aided by a weak and simpering MSM) extending his ruinous-for-the-UK run? I fully expect BoJo to fudge Brexit but if he doesn't and this happens - "If the Withdrawal Agreement Bill is not ratified by 31 January 2020, we will leave the EU without a deal in place" - then the "one off" maybe a much longer run.
* He of course knows BoJo well.
Comment of the day (from WRMF on the Quilette link) has me in stitches:
“Labor could not have picked a worse candidate.”
US Democratic Party to UK Labour Party: “Hold My Beer”
Only once: "one-off" offer?...
No need to go into any depth about last week's General Election in the UK. Amazing stuff: the Conservative Party polled 43.6 per cent of the popular vote, which is its highest share since 1979. The Labour Party got 203 seats, the fewest since 1935. CON got 13.96 million votes, compare to Tony Blair in his landslide win in 1997 got 'only' 13.5 million (43.2%). Now, no other parties are in the Top 5:
- John Major 14,093,007 (1992) 41.9%
- Boris Johnson 13,966,451 (2019) 43.6%
- Margaret Thatcher 13,760,935 (1987) 42.2%
- Margaret Thatcher 13,697,923 (1979) 43.9%
- Theresa May 13,667,213 (2017) 42.4%
Anyhoo..."The crumbling of the ‘Red Wall’ is the big story of this election and some commentators are describing it as a “one off.” The conventional wisdom is that working class voters have “lent” their votes to the Conservatives and, barring an upset, will give them back next time round. It’s Brexit, supposedly that has been the game-changer—an excuse leapt on by Corbyn’s outriders in the media, who are loathe to blame Labour’s defeat on their man." So writes Toby Young* on Quillette.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember Maggie's extended-thank-God success partly due to 'Mondeo Man', or Blair's slimey manipulations (aided by a weak and simpering MSM) extending his ruinous-for-the-UK run? I fully expect BoJo to fudge Brexit but if he doesn't and this happens - "If the Withdrawal Agreement Bill is not ratified by 31 January 2020, we will leave the EU without a deal in place" - then the "one off" maybe a much longer run.
* He of course knows BoJo well.
Comment of the day (from WRMF on the Quilette link) has me in stitches:
“Labor could not have picked a worse candidate.”
US Democratic Party to UK Labour Party: “Hold My Beer”
viernes, 1 de noviembre de 2019
October's over II...
The original October's over was long ago in the 'innocent' days of a young Owsblog (currently in its 15th year). Now it is
It is "Time to Clear the BREXIT Blockage" as Get Britain Out so succinctly puts it.
October's over II...
The original October's over was long ago in the 'innocent' days of a young Owsblog (currently in its 15th year). Now it is
It is "Time to Clear the BREXIT Blockage" as Get Britain Out so succinctly puts it.
lunes, 27 de mayo de 2019
Overall obluctation options...
Guido has posted a graph from Lord Ashcroft Polls with the "rough breakdown from [the graph he posts] is that half the Brexit Party’s voters came from the Tories, quarter from Labour. Labour also haemorrhaged votes to the Greens and LibDems. Problems for both Labour and the Tories look daunting."
I happen to think the bottom graph (see image below or scroll right down on the Ashcroft link) is far more interesting: Lord Ashcroft has "surveyed over 10,000 voters to ask how they voted, why they chose the party they did, and – at least as of this weekend – what they see themselves doing at the next general election"
"Overall, only 43% of 2017 Conservative voters who turned out in the European elections say they will vote Tory at the next general election."... ..."Half of Labour-Brexit Party switchers said they expected to stay with their new party at the next general election, with only just a quarter saying they expect to go back to Labour."
If this is anywhere near acurate we're going to have to get used to Coalition government. However, I expect one or two more bombshells before that happens but the fact that The Brexit Party is already on par with LIB/LAB/CON is amazing.
Overall obluctation options...
Guido has posted a graph from Lord Ashcroft Polls with the "rough breakdown from [the graph he posts] is that half the Brexit Party’s voters came from the Tories, quarter from Labour. Labour also haemorrhaged votes to the Greens and LibDems. Problems for both Labour and the Tories look daunting."
I happen to think the bottom graph (see image below or scroll right down on the Ashcroft link) is far more interesting: Lord Ashcroft has "surveyed over 10,000 voters to ask how they voted, why they chose the party they did, and – at least as of this weekend – what they see themselves doing at the next general election"
"Overall, only 43% of 2017 Conservative voters who turned out in the European elections say they will vote Tory at the next general election."... ..."Half of Labour-Brexit Party switchers said they expected to stay with their new party at the next general election, with only just a quarter saying they expect to go back to Labour."If this is anywhere near acurate we're going to have to get used to Coalition government. However, I expect one or two more bombshells before that happens but the fact that The Brexit Party is already on par with LIB/LAB/CON is amazing.
sábado, 10 de junio de 2017
Only Oldies II...
![]() | ![]() |
Only Oldies gets a re-run. 'With age comes wisdom' and looking at that very straight angle from 18-24 year-old group who voted Conservative up to the same line in the 65+ age group gives truth to the old saying: older people generally have far greater knowledge and definitely more experience which usually means they make better decisions, no-doubt-about-it. Look at almost the exact opposite on the Brexit vote. Both images from Lord Ashcroft Polls: on the left the voting by demographic in this weeks UK General Election ("How did this result happen?") and the image on the right the polling data from the Brexit Referendum.
In the General Election "More than half (57%) of those who voted Labour made their decision in the last month, and more than a quarter (26%) in “the last few days". No surprise given the unbelievably poor campaign by the Conservatives and the desperately weak Conservative (in name only!) manifesto. But...how very odd but also interesting - and a little surprising given Jeremy Corbyn promised a better Brexit (UK Independence from the EU) than Theresa May - that the same younger age groups that voted Remain, also voted for Labour. Cognitive dissonance?
Only Oldies II...
![]() | ![]() |
In the General Election "More than half (57%) of those who voted Labour made their decision in the last month, and more than a quarter (26%) in “the last few days". No surprise given the unbelievably poor campaign by the Conservatives and the desperately weak Conservative (in name only!) manifesto. But...how very odd but also interesting - and a little surprising given Jeremy Corbyn promised a better Brexit (UK Independence from the EU) than Theresa May - that the same younger age groups that voted Remain, also voted for Labour. Cognitive dissonance?




