Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s greater than a 1.25% chance that Emily Thornberry will

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited February 19 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s greater than a 1.25% chance that Emily Thornberry will be next PM

One of the things about running a site about political betting and being a punter myself is that I like to spend a few minutes each day casting my eye over the markets to see if anything interesting is happening.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,601
    edited February 19
    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
  • One for TSE:

    "Gerry Adams backs Corbyn for next PM"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42936613
  • Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    And I would support that - she is the Brexit PM - no more no less
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    3 years out?!!!

    The Tories can have a new leader in post inside a week if necessary. There will be time.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    3 years is not really close
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    Pass on this one. Too many contingencies have to align.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    May may well stay until next GE because the tory MPs can't be sure that Mogg wont make his way into the last two who go to the membership and therefore their next leader.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    I love Emily.

    Did a bit of canvassing with her at GE2017

    Didnt manage to high five her like Jezza though
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890

    One for TSE:

    "Gerry Adams backs Corbyn for next PM"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42936613

    That's like being endorsed by Idi Amin.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    One for TSE:

    "Gerry Adams backs Corbyn for next PM"
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42936613


    Of course he does. It's the IRA's best chance of getting a united Ireland with the support of the British government. After all, a united Ireland solves the post-Brexit border issue beautifully. The customs border will then literally be in the sea.

    The small matter of consent and having a hostile Protestant community are hardly likely to bother the likes of Adams or, indeed, Corbyn.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,750
    edited February 19

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Have you not seen what happened in New Zealand?

    A desperate party replaced a failing leader with under 3 months to go. And it worked.

    The ‘Can’t do Anything because it is 3 years Away from an Election’ posters need to get real.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    edited February 19
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    3 years out?!!!

    The Tories can have a new leader in post inside a week if necessary. There will be time.
    I just think the optics will be very bad unless she goes willingly.

    At what point can you declare Brexit done? Not 29 March 2019 - we're only starting a 2 year transition then. So maybe after March 2021 - just a year off the next GE, to late to change leader without making it look like a panic.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    Has Ben Bradley hacked your account?
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
    After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female
  • SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,601
    edited February 19
    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?
  • Tomorrows front pages could be interesting
  • SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

    What's his Twitter handle?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?
    Bloomberg has this up:

    U.K. Has a Secret Plan to Hold Brexit Cash If EU Refuses to Trade - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-19/u-k-has-secret-plan-to-hold-brexit-cash-if-eu-refuses-to-trade

    Back to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.
  • SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

    What's his Twitter handle?
    @thomasknox
  • Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?
    She has been under threat since the last GE so if a challenge comes post Brexit it is hardly going to surprise anyone
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

    What's his Twitter handle?
    @ThomasKnox
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?
    They could - convincingly - argue that she had to stay in place for the negotiations because of the time factor but that like Eden she was not up to managing domestic matters effectively - and now it is time to turn to them blah blah blah...

    I think given the general expectation she will retire around 2019/20 people would buy that.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    Looks like Ben Wallace MP is now backtracking too when asked if he was comparing Jezza to a treasonous agent of a hostile foreign power he said

    Nope

    Rodger Kibble


    @rodgerkibble
    38m38 minutes ago
    More Rodger Kibble Retweeted Ben Wallace MP
    @theresa_may do you endorse this comparison of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to a treasonous agent of a hostile foreign power?Rodger Kibble added,
    Ben Wallace MP
    Verified account

    @BWallaceMP
    “Jeremy has been interested in Foreign Policy issues his entire political career “ - Labour MP Louis Haigh , BBC Daily Politics - yup so was Kim Philby
    1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet Like Direct message

    Ben Wallace MP‏Verified account
    @BWallaceMP
    Follow Follow @BWallaceMP
    More
    Replying to @rodgerkibble @theresa_may
    Nope
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,668

    SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

    I have. I was careful not to repeat the silly accusation that Corbyn sold secrets. But did he consort - chat - with Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies? - the evidence, to me, seems overwhelming that he did. The fact they found him "too stupid" to be that useful is the clincher. Because he is a stupid man. So they obviously met him and knew him well.

    Plus he is a friend of Iran, the IRA, Hamas, all the enemies of Britain. All this is on record.

    I have called him a traitor on Twitter. I doubt if he cares, or is even aware, I am pretty sure he won't sue, however. Because a trawl of the evidence would not be good. For him.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,322
    Kicking off in Wigan. Delph sent off.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,668

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
    After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female
    She is terrible.

    IT occurred to me today that Britain has never been so badly led by its politicians. The government is helmed by a flailing, autistic (if well meaning) fool who has no clue how to campaign, or empathise. The Opposition is led by an actual communist traitor.

    Meanwhile the 3rd largest part in the Commons simply wants to destroy the UK altogether.

    All this as we are faced with Brexit, the biggest challenge we have faced, as a nation, since World War Two.

    Fabulous.
  • dixiedean said:

    Kicking off in Wigan. Delph sent off.

    Really is kicking off. Not sure about red card, could have gone either way
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    SeanT said:

    SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

    I have. I was careful not to repeat the silly accusation that Corbyn sold secrets. But did he consort - chat - with Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies? - the evidence, to me, seems overwhelming that he did. The fact they found him "too stupid" to be that useful is the clincher. Because he is a stupid man. So they obviously met him and knew him well.

    Plus he is a friend of Iran, the IRA, Hamas, all the enemies of Britain. All this is on record.

    I have called him a traitor on Twitter. I doubt if he cares, or is even aware, I am pretty sure he won't sue, however. Because a trawl of the evidence would not be good. For him.

    You're right - he won't care.

    But it was worth looking at your tweets just to see the "bacterium on a diatom on an amphipod on a frog" retweet. Amazing, thanks!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?
    They could simply say that while she was the right person to agree the divorce deal and get a transition in place she is not the right person to agree the future relationship between Britain and the EU and that, given the amount of time that will take, it needs someone younger to take that forward.

    If the next choice is a good one i.e. not a JRM or some other retread I doubt if the voters will care that Tory MPs are two-faced so and so's.

    After all, all those MPs - all 170 of them - who declared that they had no confidence in Corbyn cheered him to the rafters after the GE. I'm sure Tory MPs can match them for hypocrisy.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,668

    SeanT said:

    SeanT has waded into the Corbyn spat on twitter.

    I have. I was careful not to repeat the silly accusation that Corbyn sold secrets. But did he consort - chat - with Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies? - the evidence, to me, seems overwhelming that he did. The fact they found him "too stupid" to be that useful is the clincher. Because he is a stupid man. So they obviously met him and knew him well.

    Plus he is a friend of Iran, the IRA, Hamas, all the enemies of Britain. All this is on record.

    I have called him a traitor on Twitter. I doubt if he cares, or is even aware, I am pretty sure he won't sue, however. Because a trawl of the evidence would not be good. For him.

    You're right - he won't care.

    But it was worth looking at your tweets just to see the "bacterium on a diatom on an amphipod on a frog" retweet. Amazing, thanks!
    You're welcome.

    Incidentally I think he will begin to care if this gains social media traction. Sure, the faithful Corbynites will forgive anything, but anyone over 40 - i.e. the people that vote - will, I suspect, be made a little queasy by his affable "chats" with Soviet-communist agents.

    I do not believe he can win a British General Election.

    The danger is that Labour replace him with someone with equally sinister views but much less of a backstory and much more sellability. Emily Thornberry, to go back on thread, is definitely in that category (as I pointed out on PB years ago). She's like a leftwing Blair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    @bigjohnowls

    Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
  • Sky reporting the allegations, together with first reference on BBC on line, and now Watson attacking the press.

    Tomorrows papers and media reporting will be interesting
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,322
    On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
    Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,890
    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
    After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female
    She is terrible.

    IT occurred to me today that Britain has never been so badly led by its politicians. The government is helmed by a flailing, autistic (if well meaning) fool who has no clue how to campaign, or empathise. The Opposition is led by an actual communist traitor.

    Meanwhile the 3rd largest part in the Commons simply wants to destroy the UK altogether.

    All this as we are faced with Brexit, the biggest challenge we have faced, as a nation, since World War Two.

    Fabulous.
    Sometimes, we pull things off, despite appalling leadership. During the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, we had the most dreadful politicians in charge, but we still won in the end. Many a battle has been won, because experienced junior officers and NCO's made up for their superiors' mistakes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    All very true.

    However on your 'idiots' remark I would remind you the government of the time included Paul Channon and Kenneth Baker.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Scott_P said:
    Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,668
    Scott_P said:
    This seems a foolish move (unless Watson is scheming to bring down Corbyn - quite possible). Labour's best hope is that this story disappears. Because it is potentially very damaging. So Watson has done the one thing to keep it in the headlines?

    Hmm.
  • ydoethur said:

    @bigjohnowls

    Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

    Well Laura Piddock isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    Sean_F said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
    After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female
    She is terrible.

    IT occurred to me today that Britain has never been so badly led by its politicians. The government is helmed by a flailing, autistic (if well meaning) fool who has no clue how to campaign, or empathise. The Opposition is led by an actual communist traitor.

    Meanwhile the 3rd largest part in the Commons simply wants to destroy the UK altogether.

    All this as we are faced with Brexit, the biggest challenge we have faced, as a nation, since World War Two.

    Fabulous.
    Sometimes, we pull things off, despite appalling leadership. During the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, we had the most dreadful politicians in charge, but we still won in the end. Many a battle has been won, because experienced junior officers and NCO's made up for their superiors' mistakes.
    Yep, our DExEU civil servants will pull our nuts out of the fire...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    edited February 19
    dixiedean said:

    On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
    Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

    The 2017 intake is seriously unimpressive, isn't it?

    Bradley, Dent Coad, O'Mara, Pidcock - all of these give the impression they would be out of their depth on a parish council.

    As @SeanT I do despair of our political leadership.

    Edit - and I wrote that post before seeing Laura Pidcock had decided to republish an alleged libel about her own leader!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
    After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female
    She is terrible.

    IT occurred to me today that Britain has never been so badly led by its politicians. The government is helmed by a flailing, autistic (if well meaning) fool who has no clue how to campaign, or empathise. The Opposition is led by an actual communist traitor.

    Meanwhile the 3rd largest part in the Commons simply wants to destroy the UK altogether.

    All this as we are faced with Brexit, the biggest challenge we have faced, as a nation, since World War Two.

    Fabulous.
    Sometimes, we pull things off, despite appalling leadership. During the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, we had the most dreadful politicians in charge, but we still won in the end. Many a battle has been won, because experienced junior officers and NCO's made up for their superiors' mistakes.
    Yep, our DExEU civil servants will pull our nuts out of the fire...
    I don't want any Civil Servants pulling on my nuts, thanks, even if the alternative is roasting them.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    I think Nick's right though - unless TMay decides to resign (and she's no quitter) we'll be getting too close to another election by 2019 for there to be a hostile coup IMO.
    Maybe. But given her age, assuming the Tories win (a big "If" I know) immediately after the election the whole leadership drama will start all over again.... They may as well get it over and done with before the election and given themselves a chance of winning. After all, she's never going to get better at campaigning, is she?
    After listening to her today she was again very poor at public speaking and her time will be up post Brexit, but do not be surprised if she is succeeded by another female
    She is terrible.

    IT occurred to me today that Britain has never been so badly led by its politicians. The government is helmed by a flailing, autistic (if well meaning) fool who has no clue how to campaign, or empathise. The Opposition is led by an actual communist traitor.

    Meanwhile the 3rd largest part in the Commons simply wants to destroy the UK altogether.

    All this as we are faced with Brexit, the biggest challenge we have faced, as a nation, since World War Two.

    Fabulous.
    I think I may have out-SeanT'd you on Feb 6

    "For various reasons I have been listening to radio news programmes more than normal in the last few days. I can sum up what I have learnt, as follows:-

    1. The Tories are an absolute fucking shambles. An absolute shower. Of shits, incompetents and Brexit-obsessed loons
    2. Labour are an absolute fucking shambles: of extreme left ex-Militants with interesting views about some minorities, cowed MPs and a leadership largely silent on key issues.
    3. The Lib Dems may well also be an absolute fucking shambles but since no-one has heard or seen them for months it is impossible to tell.
    4. UKIP would also be an absolute shambles but is now in reality one middle-aged man fucking for Britain, or something.
    5. Brexit is an absolute FUBAR and Britain is playing the role of the first Mrs Rochester in the attic, as far as the rest of Europe is concerned"

    Fabulous, as you say.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    ydoethur said:

    @bigjohnowls

    Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

    Only ones i have posted are the one Ben the MP from Mansfield has deleted and the one the other Tory Minister is now denying was comparing Corbyn to Philbyn,

    Cant see whats wrong with that.

    Some Posters on here like Sean T more of an issue IMO (Moderators?)
  • ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
    Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

    The 2017 intake is seriously unimpressive, isn't it?

    Bradley, Dent Coad, O'Mara, Pidcock - all of these give the impression they would be out of their depth on a parish council.

    As @SeanT I do despair of our political leadership.

    Edit - and I wrote that post before seeing Laura Pidcock had decided to republish an alleged libel about her own leader!
    Give them a chance!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    edited February 19

    ydoethur said:

    @bigjohnowls

    Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

    Only ones i have posted are the one Ben the MP from Mansfield has deleted and the one the other Tory Minister is now denying was REDACTED

    Cant see whats wrong with that.

    Some Posters on here like Sean T more of an issue IMO (Moderators?)
    You have republished a tweet deleted because of a libel threat - and you can't see what's wrong with that?

    Mind you, watching Pidcock libel her own leader through sheer gormlessness is quite funny.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    ydoethur said:

    @bigjohnowls

    Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

    Only ones i have posted are the one Ben the MP from Mansfield has deleted and the one the other Tory Minister is now denying was comparing Corbyn to Philbyn,

    Cant see whats wrong with that.

    Some Posters on here like Sean T more of an issue IMO (Moderators?)
    Any republication of a potentially libellous statement is a fresh utterance of that libel and potentially puts OGH and, possibly, you at risk.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic. Yes there probably is a better than 1.25% chance for Thornberry. But not much more.
    Oh and Ben Bradley is a foolish man who ought to have learned his lesson from his blog posts. But apparently hasn't.

    The 2017 intake is seriously unimpressive, isn't it?

    Bradley, Dent Coad, O'Mara, Pidcock - all of these give the impression they would be out of their depth on a parish council.

    As @SeanT I do despair of our political leadership.

    Edit - and I wrote that post before seeing Laura Pidcock had decided to republish an alleged libel about her own leader!
    Give them a chance!
    I've given them nine months.

    FE Smith they ain't.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    Scott_P said:
    Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)
    Yeah Tom Watson is not the right person to be pointing fingers on this.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    I don't think he needed the support of the Czechs to do those things :smile:
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    This seems a foolish move (unless Watson is scheming to bring down Corbyn - quite possible). Labour's best hope is that this story disappears. Because it is potentially very damaging. So Watson has done the one thing to keep it in the headlines?

    Hmm.
    More likely to be a warning shot. They may be worried about what else might come out. Plus if you call it propaganda in advance people might discount it, no matter how true it might be.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    I don't think he needed the support of the Czechs to do those things :smile:
    You mean this is a Czech he would have been willing to see bounce?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    @bigjohnowls

    Can I please again urge you to be careful. Republishing tweets you are criticising for being libellous is not perhaps the smartest idea.

    Only ones i have posted are the one Ben the MP from Mansfield has deleted and the one the other Tory Minister is now denying was comparing Corbyn to Philbyn,

    Cant see whats wrong with that.

    Some Posters on here like Sean T more of an issue IMO (Moderators?)
    Any republication of a potentially libellous statement is a fresh utterance of that libel and potentially puts OGH and, possibly, you at risk.
    That is back to front - OGH can relatively easily neutralise the risk to himself, the actual poster cannot. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk_defamation_law_reforms_take_effect_from_start_of_2014/
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

    Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

    Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,594
    For those betting on USA Congressional elections the PA Supreme court has just handed down new Congressional District boundaries absolutely crushing the Republican gerrymander.

    It would have made the result of 2016 a 10R-8D split as opposed to the 13R-5D that happened.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    glw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)
    Yeah Tom Watson is not the right person to be pointing fingers on this.
    Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    I don't think he needed the support of the Czechs to do those things :smile:
    Indeed he was doing this before they met.

    From the article, it seems the Czechs were more interested in his anti-apartheid activities.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    glw said:

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

    Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

    Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.
    I take your point. Makes you wonder how many UK MPs the Russians have under their 'guidance'. I bet they're not all Labour.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    It is more likely still that the Czechs would have been delighted with a long term 100/1 shot who turns in due course into LOTO and knows virtually all our secrets, on Privy Council terms. It is tempting to say that they couldn't in a million years have foreseen, blah blah blah, but the sober fact is, that is what they (allegedly) did.

    What worries me is the issue of naming conventions. How could anyone over the age of 6 think COB was an impenetrable disguise for Corbyn?
  • Cyclefree said:

    glw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)
    Yeah Tom Watson is not the right person to be pointing fingers on this.
    Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.
    After Tom Watson’s vile attacks on Leon Britton I’m astounded by his intervention.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    I take your point. Makes you wonder how many UK MPs the Russians have under their 'guidance'. I bet they're not all Labour.

    For sure. MPs as a whole need to get smart on the issue.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    Did SeanT organise Live Aid?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,668

    Cyclefree said:

    glw said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh dear. Tom Watson is dragging himself back into the public eye. More witchsniffing general? (if the witches are Tory, at least...)
    Yeah Tom Watson is not the right person to be pointing fingers on this.
    Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.
    After Tom Watson’s vile attacks on Leon Britton I’m astounded by his intervention.
    Unless Watson is so desperate to bring down Corbyn he will risk anything, Which, given Labour's recent history, is quite plausible.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,594
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    It is more likely still that the Czechs would have been delighted with a long term 100/1 shot who turns in due course into LOTO and knows virtually all our secrets, on Privy Council terms. It is tempting to say that they couldn't in a million years have foreseen, blah blah blah, but the sober fact is, that is what they (allegedly) did.

    What worries me is the issue of naming conventions. How could anyone over the age of 6 think COB was an impenetrable disguise for Corbyn?
    It's absolutely astounding that the UK security services would let an easy to spot spy (literally just pop into a rival intelligence organisations publically available archives) onto privy council.

    Hard to believe it's true.

    Almost like it's not true.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    SeanT said:

    Scott_P said:
    This seems a foolish move (unless Watson is scheming to bring down Corbyn - quite possible). Labour's best hope is that this story disappears. Because it is potentially very damaging. So Watson has done the one thing to keep it in the headlines?

    Hmm.
    Well maybe, although perhaps it's just because right wing newspaper bashing is surely a move the base loves, just as left wing newspaper bashing is for the Tories?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    glw said:

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

    Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

    Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.
    I take your point. Makes you wonder how many UK MPs the Russians have under their 'guidance'. I bet they're not all Labour.
    Indeed, the ones getting Russki support are not on the left anymore.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,745
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    This also severely damaged his party, which won just one more election in its own strength afterwards as the man he should have replaced (Gladstone) was able to hang on far too long (about 25 years too long, indeed, although Jenkins called it ten).

    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    It is more likely still that the Czechs would have been delighted with a long term 100/1 shot who turns in due course into LOTO and knows virtually all our secrets, on Privy Council terms. It is tempting to say that they couldn't in a million years have foreseen, blah blah blah, but the sober fact is, that is what they (allegedly) did.

    What worries me is the issue of naming conventions. How could anyone over the age of 6 think COB was an impenetrable disguise for Corbyn?
    Of course by the time he became LOTO the Czechs were no longer part of the Soviet bloc... indeed the Soviet bloc was no longer!

    And as for COB... it's almost as if the whole thing is a spoof!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    Man City diving like Deli Ali now.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    If only it were true.

    If Emily Thornberry became Labour leader, I would support the Labour Party again and we would have a decent mainstream Labour leadership once more.

    Thornberry is no Corbynista. She's been loyal to the dreadful Corbyn but she isnt from the hard left. For the first time since John Smith died in 1994 we would have a Labour leader on the mainstream, free from the factions of Blairite right and Corbynite hard Marxist left.

    Be in no doubt however, Thornberry as leader would mean the vile Mr McDonnell and the hopeless Diane Abbott going too. And eventually she would have to confront and cleanse the party of the poison that is Momentum.

    Alas, I doubt if Thornberry will take over soon. Corbyn loves the Stalinist adulation, the youth movements, the songs to the Leader, the Messianic adulation. He is a vain posturing political pygmy but one I suspect who will go on dragging his party down to destruction.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

    Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

    Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.
    I take your point. Makes you wonder how many UK MPs the Russians have under their 'guidance'. I bet they're not all Labour.
    Indeed, the ones getting Russki support are not on the left anymore.
    Yeah, the lefties just go for Iranian support... ;)
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316
    Cyclefree said:

    Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.

    When Watson first made his allegations in the Commons I immediately thought it sounded like some of the whackier conspiracy theories I'd read about the issue, and it was things that had been circulating for decades already. He's a mug at best.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    De Broyne is just a different class from any other player in England. For all the class in this City side they are a different team with him on the pitch.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316
    Foxy said:

    Indeed, the ones getting Russki support are not on the left anymore.

    I don't think that is really true from looking at the guests RT has had in recent years.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    What happened to the sunlit uplands?
    image
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,322
    Yeah Wigan !
  • Wigan amazing
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    Cracking Wigan goal!
  • Will Grigg is on fire.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Bloody hell
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    Wigan 1-0 City
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    glw said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed, the ones getting Russki support are not on the left anymore.

    I don't think that is really true from looking at the guests RT has had in recent years.
    Have you noticed the Mueller enquiry, and wondered what the same Russians did here?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Matthew Parris eviscerated him in a recent column in the Times on the whole child abuse imbroglio, once "Nick" was charged. I'm surprised Watson has the nerve to show his face after that.

    When Watson first made his allegations in the Commons I immediately thought it sounded like some of the whackier conspiracy theories I'd read about the issue, and it was things that had been circulating for decades already. He's a mug at best.
    I would have said he was more of a Toby Jug personally.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Alistair said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT re Corbyn and Cyclefree's post on libel:

    He might want to reflect on the unfortunate fate of Charles Dilke. Dilke brought a libel action - when innocent - lost, and his career was irretrievably ruined.

    Snip
    And it's difficult to see a pathway whereby Corbyn would emerge with anything other than copious amounts of mud over him even if he technically won.


    Indeed. Lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Corbyn. They would not let him get away with the sort of inexactitudes the way that pudding Marr does.

    I don't believe that Corbyn sold any secrets because I highly doubt he'd have any. Why would anyone in the British government have trusted him with any secrets in the first place? It's not as if his views weren't out in the open. You'd have to have been one hell of an idiot to entrust the sorts of secrets the Warsaw Pact would have been interested in to people like Corbyn.
    Plus he's not particularly venal is he? He's more likely to have given secrets away than sold them.

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.
    He's not that averse to money. He got paid by Press TV after all.

    It is far more likely that the Czechs - if they did target him - would have been more interested in having a Labour MP speak up against things like the missiles on Greenham Common and in favour of "peace and disarmament". Seeking to undermine public support for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in relation to arms and their approach to Russia was much more likely.
    It is more likely still that the Czechs would have been delighted with a long term 100/1 shot who turns in due course into LOTO and knows virtually all our secrets, on Privy Council terms. It is tempting to say that they couldn't in a million years have foreseen, blah blah blah, but the sober fact is, that is what they (allegedly) did.

    What worries me is the issue of naming conventions. How could anyone over the age of 6 think COB was an impenetrable disguise for Corbyn?
    It's absolutely astounding that the UK security services would let an easy to spot spy (literally just pop into a rival intelligence organisations publically available archives) onto privy council.

    Hard to believe it's true.

    Almost like it's not true.
    Shit. You seriously think the UK security services have a say in whether the LotO gets a seat on the Privy Council?

    Seriously?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    Will Griggs on fire like Ben Bradleys Bum
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    But as you say, he won't have had access to any secrets, so why the Czechs would have targetted him (if they did) is rather baffling.

    Collecting intelligence doesn't not mean collecting exclusively classified information. As I said the other day the rumoured pee tape is not classified, but it would be hugely useful for gaining leverage over a leader.

    Basically useful idiots can do plenty of damage without disclosing anything classified.
    I take your point. Makes you wonder how many UK MPs the Russians have under their 'guidance'. I bet they're not all Labour.
    Indeed, the ones getting Russki support are not on the left anymore.
    You either blame the Russians, or the Russians
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,940
    Offside Offside 5 mins plus injuries for Wigan to hold on
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316
    Foxy said:

    Have you noticed the Mueller enquiry, and wondered what the same Russians did here?

    They dynamics are rather different here, for starters because we have a much more heavily regulated media and political campaigning than in the US. But I'm sure that the Russians are pushing propaganda in the UK, and in the West in general.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    Offside Offside 5 mins plus injuries for Wigan to hold on

    3
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    glw said:

    Foxy said:

    Have you noticed the Mueller enquiry, and wondered what the same Russians did here?

    They dynamics are rather different here, for starters because we have a much more heavily regulated media and political campaigning than in the US. But I'm sure that the Russians are pushing propaganda in the UK, and in the West in general.
    The Russians have been trolling against the EU for years. They don't even hide it any more.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Looks good value! In particular I think TM has a decent chance of staying on. The Tories will need to portray Brexit as a success, and how do they do that while ejecting its captain?

    (And first - trained in speed by the Czech Secret Service, y'know.)

    They gratefully say thanks to Mrs May. You're now 60+ with diabetes and deserve more walking holidays with Philip. Off you go.
    The process is that 49 MPs say "We have no confidence in Mrs May as PM", shortly after a Brexit that they simply have to declare to be a success, and in the middle of the complex post-Brexit trade talks etc. It'll look desperate, and they'll be asked why they didn't do it before - if they had no confidence inher, why was she leading the negotiations?
    Bloomberg has this up:

    U.K. Has a Secret Plan to Hold Brexit Cash If EU Refuses to Trade - Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-19/u-k-has-secret-plan-to-hold-brexit-cash-if-eu-refuses-to-trade

    Back to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.
    That shouldn't be a bloody secret plan, it should BE the plan. And not too much cash even if we do get 'trade' - given that such trade is more beneficial to the EU than it is to us, getting 'trade' is its own reward.
This discussion has been closed.