Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another day and Corbyn’s detachment on Brexit from the vast ma

2»

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    MaxPB said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
    Outstanding precis. Thank you.
  • John_M said:

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.

    May has already agreed to no infrastructure and no checks which surely rules out a technical solution, despite any impression the government is trying to give that the matter is still open.
    No she has not - much as you would like. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    HYUFD said:

    welshowl said:

    Foxy said:

    welshowl said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.

    Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales

    Quick way to assist leave in spades

    The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.

    The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
    ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
    The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.

    Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
    Suspect the 'fury with the EU' is only amongst those who were always looking for reasons to be furious with the EU. Given we are currently in the single market, I cannot see how we could face different tariffs than other EU countries. The problem is of Trump's creation, not the EU's.
    True. But chances are in this n other circumstances would have no problem with us.
    One of the positives about Corbyns Brexit policy is that it does not mean sucking up to bullies like Trump. It is about having the ability to protect our industries, such as Welsh steel. Far better a Corbyns Brexit than a Hannanite one.
    I take your point, and it’s better than other alternatives for sure, but it still involves putting a wall around us and about 7% of the world, to the exclusion of the other 93%. The 93% is going to define the 21st century. Better to get involved, than clinging to the 21st century Austria Hungarian empire. In my view at the least. Others may differ.
    I am no EUphile but the EU as a whole is ahead of China in second place to the USA in gdp terms at the moment with Japan well behind those 3 in 4th place.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


    At the moment........
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    John_M said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.

    What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).

    In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.

    Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.

    As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.

    A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
    The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.

    However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
    can you roll over in a ditch?
    not sure if this is one to die in a ditch over. :wink:
    so fuck off it is then
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    Perfect description
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
    You can't fly a hospital. What is wrong with you?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.

    May has already agreed to no infrastructure and no checks which surely rules out a technical solution, despite any impression the government is trying to give that the matter is still open.
    'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Where is the evidence we will get an exemption and the EU won't?
    Trump does not believe in Free Trade. He ran on an openly protectionist programme. There is little evidence he sets much store by NATO either.
    Several guns are being jumped here.
    If we want an exemption we will need to give something, and it will not be what we already do.
    That is not the way the Trump racket works.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    John_M said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.

    What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).

    In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.

    Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.

    As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.

    A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
    The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.

    However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
    can you roll over in a ditch?
    not sure if this is one to die in a ditch over. :wink:
    so fuck off it is then
    Not really TMay's style is it? - a roll-over is more likely imho.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    dixiedean said:

    Where is the evidence we will get an exemption and the EU won't?
    Trump does not believe in Free Trade. He ran on an openly protectionist programme. There is little evidence he sets much store by NATO either.
    Several guns are being jumped here.
    If we want an exemption we will need to give something, and it will not be what we already do.
    That is not the way the Trump racket works.

    Well said!
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    John_M said:

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.

    May has already agreed to no infrastructure and no checks which surely rules out a technical solution, despite any impression the government is trying to give that the matter is still open.
    So that’s the sound of a cheque for 39bn being torn up I can hear, ooh and a hard Irish border on the EU side ( ‘cos we’ve said we’re not going to impose anything anyway)? So that will be Varadkar’s pyrhic “victory”?.

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited March 2018

    John_M said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.

    What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).

    In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.

    Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.

    As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.

    A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
    The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.

    However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.
    can you roll over in a ditch?
    not sure if this is one to die in a ditch over. :wink:
    so fuck off it is then
    Not really TMay's style is it? - a roll-over is more likely imho.
    May has never seen a can she didn't want to kick down the road. Sadly, this is no longer an option. Honestly, I have no idea what she's going to do. She has to negotiate with one hand while holding a sack of warring ferrets in the other.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
    You can't fly a hospital. What is wrong with you?
    I dunno what's wrong with me - but I'd rather have a hospital to help me find out than a Typhoon jet. :smile:
  • Time has come to settle down and so goodnight to everyone and a special goodnight to Ben.

    We do have the odd disagreement but in the end it would be hopeless if we all thought the same.

    Have a relaxing evening
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Time has come to settle down and so goodnight to everyone and a special goodnight to Ben.

    We do have the odd disagreement but in the end it would be hopeless if we all thought the same.

    Have a relaxing evening

    Indeed - all just good banter - no hard feelings. Good night!
  • Time has come to settle down and so goodnight to everyone and a special goodnight to Ben.

    We do have the odd disagreement but in the end it would be hopeless if we all thought the same.

    Have a relaxing evening

    Indeed - all just good banter - no hard feelings. Good night!
    Of course there are no hard feelings - all the best
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited March 2018
    welshowl said:

    HYUFD said:

    welshowl said:

    Foxy said:

    welshowl said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.

    Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales

    Quick way to assist leave in spades

    The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.

    The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
    ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
    The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.

    Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
    Suspe's.
    True. But chances are in this n other circumstances would have no problem with us.
    One of the positives about Corbyns Brexit policy is that it does not mean sucking up to bullies like Trump. It is about having the ability to protect our industries, such as Welsh steel. Far better a Corbyns Brexit than a Hannanite one.
    I take your point, and it’s better than other alternatives for sure, but it still involves putting a wall around us and about 7% of the world, to the exclusion of the other 93%. The 93% is going to define the 21st century. Better to get involved, than clinging to the 21st century Austria Hungarian empire. In my view at the least. Others may differ.
    I am no EUphile but the EU as a whole is ahead of China in second place to the USA in gdp terms at the moment with Japan well behind those 3 in 4th place.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


    At the moment........
    China will overtake the EU and the USA eventually but those will still likely be the top 3 in 2030 with India overtaking Japan in 4th place
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Apple Files Patent For a Crumb-Resistant MacBook Keyboard

    Or just don’t eat at your computer....
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Yes.

    And he STILL owes me a gold sovereign, from his losing bet in 2015.
    Strange - he used to go mental and on ad on if people didnt settle with him
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
    I have a philosophical difference with the stance of UK opinion-formers post-Iraq War that "the world is difficult so let's resile from it and concentrate on domestic matters instead". I think such a stance is juvenile, ahistorical and doomed to failure. That isolationist stance occurs amongst many people and is not necessarily left/right nor Remain/Leave, though it was bought into sharp focus by Brexit. I think a strong defence is necessary for the life of comparative ease we lead and the concept that it can be continually cut is dangerous.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    .

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    She was Yvette Cooper and that means her comments were fair game, given Labour party policy and her position within the then Labour government.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
    I have a philosophical difference with the stance of UK opinion-formers post-Iraq War that "the world is difficult so let's resile from it and concentrate on domestic matters instead". I think such a stance is juvenile, ahistorical and doomed to failure. That isolationist stance occurs amongst many people and is not necessarily left/right nor Remain/Leave, though it was bought into sharp focus by Brexit. I think a strong defence is necessary for the life of comparative ease we lead and the concept that it can be continually cut is dangerous.
    Fair enough - it's a view.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
    You can't fly a hospital. What is wrong with you?
    :)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Apple Files Patent For a Crumb-Resistant MacBook Keyboard

    Or just don’t eat at your computer....

    Didn't the ZX80 have one?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,546
    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:


    The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.

    However, for those of us who remember playing Chris Crawford's 'Balance of Power', minor issues can derail any political process.

    If the EU are making it a red line (as they appear to be), then (given that technical solutions are unacceptable to Varadkar) May has to either roll over or tell them to fuck off.

    I think it can be today. After 20 years of peace, does anyone on either side of the border want to pick up their rifles again?

    A customs border isn't going impinge on people's ability to travel or settle on either side of the border. It is to ensure that certain goods have the right tariffs charged on them when they are imported. No more, no less. Additionally, there is already a personal customs border for fags and booze given the differing rates of duty applied in NI vs RoI. So I'll say it again, what difference is it really going to make?

    In Theresa's position I'd tell Varadkar to go and fuck off, if he wants to hold up Brexit or force us into a WTO Brexit then he's really only damaging his own country.
    TBF, the EU/Ireland are only holding Theresa May to what she already committed to in December. Also TBF, the option 3 backstop measures in the draft agreement are limited to border-related matters which are pretty much a bilateral GFA issue before Brexit anyway. It is a strange matter, but everything to do with Northern Ireland is strange, including Northern Ireland itself. Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,881

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    Don't confuse activity with progress. The UK sends new Typhoons straight off the FAL into RTP (reduce to produce, essentially spare part recovery) which is coyly described as 'storage' at Coningsby.

    So while we spend an incredible amount of money on the RAF we don't get a commensurate fighting service out of the other end.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,546

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
    Things would be worse for Ireland apart from the border without a deal. The border wouldn't be worse. The Irish border is tricky, not least because the government is held over a barrel by the DUP. But it is the only major thing holding up the Withdrawal Agreement. I expect something to be worked out. The EU/Irish want to make it clear that "Yeah, yeah and then let's forget about it." isn't going to fly.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    This Tim guy seems to really rile PB's brexiteers/neobrexiteers.

    Can we bring him back?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    No, he was an absolute arse on here - and I know stuff he did outside of this forum as bad if not worse.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.
    Things would be worse for Ireland apart from the border without a deal. The border wouldn't be worse. The Irish border is tricky, not least because the government is held over a barrel by the DUP. But it is the only major thing holding up the Withdrawal Agreement. I expect something to be worked out. The EU/Irish want to make it clear that "Yeah, yeah and then let's forget about it." isn't going to fly.
    There are only two solutions, a border between Ulster and the Republic, or a border along the Irish Sea. The first will be totally ignored by both North and South peoples, the second, because due to cut backs in the RN and Coastguard, by every one else.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Anazina said:

    This Tim guy seems to really rile PB's brexiteers/neobrexiteers.

    Can we bring him back?

    He was obnoxious - I could care or less if he came back though
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Floater said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Yes.

    And he STILL owes me a gold sovereign, from his losing bet in 2015.
    Strange - he used to go mental and on ad on if people didnt settle with him
    I bet him a gold sov that Labour would poll under 34% at the next general election. When, if I recall, Ed Miliband was polling them at 43%.

    As we know, Ed finally got them just over 30%. But gold sov came there none.....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2018
    O/T

    Watford most closely matched the GB vote shares at the last election. (Bedford on the other hand has reflected the national swing most accurately over the last 3 elections. I posted the sheet for that a few days ago).

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zEh52JSfER5PaVZdMAgdHwgB3fPveZpnED5Hdp0kGfI/edit#
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    I do wonder what Starmer and Umunna make of what Corbyn said on Brexit, and how it has been received? Starmer at least must have had some significant input, but it has added no material clarity to Labour's position. Where do the Remainers in Labour go from here?

    Most Remainers vote Labour to stop the Tories. As long as a Labour Brexit gives the impression of being slightly less reactionary than a Tory one that is likely to continue. But any Remainer who believes Corbyn is anything other than deeply anti-EU is a fool.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    John_M said:

    MaxPB said:

    John_M said:

    I agree. It's (from the UK perspective) a storm in a teacup. Our total steel exports to the US (of all types) amounts to £360m odd, which is ~0.3% of our total exports to the USA, and ~0.06% of our total exports.

    What's more worrying is that it derails the free trade narrative that Fox keeps peddling (which is odd, given the UK's economy is service based, and extant FTAs don't generally address services in anything more than a rudimentary manner).

    In terms of NI border, we should have assumed WTO and started digging ditches and building lorry parks 18 months ago. It may not be soluble, as it's clearly a political, rather than a logistical issue.

    Switzerland manages without those, and it has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria. If it can be done in Switzerland, a nation which exports a lot more in terms of its GDP than Ireland or the UK, then it can be done at the Irish border.

    As I said, I'm genuinely confused as to why this has turned into such a big deal. There will be no travel restrictions, which is people's biggest fear and the UK can unilaterally allow Irish citizens the right to resettle in the UK and vice versa, just as Ireland does now for anyone born in NI.

    A customs border really isn't a big deal, definitely not as big a deal as is being made out at the moment. If a real border crossing was being suggested then I could understand the issues, but no one has suggested that Ireland will leave the CTA, have they?
    The Swiss haven't had an insurgency in recent decades. I agree it's overblown - the GFA is being treated as if Moses had tottered down from the mount with it graven on tablets of stone.

    [snip]
    There are also a lot of things being asserted as being part of the GFA which simply aren't there, or which are - at best - optimistic interpretations of inferences from the Agreement.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.

    Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

    sorry - he was vicious to women
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    An Aussie poodle for Mr Trump. The Brexit loons want the UK to be next, of course. That’s taking back control alright!!!
    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/972242845636669440?s=21
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.

    Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.

    That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Floater said:

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

    sorry - he was vicious to women

    And men.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    An Aussie poodle for Mr Trump. The Brexit loons want the UK to be next, of course. That’s taking back control alright!!!
    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/972242845636669440?s=21

    To be fair Australia is probably the USA's closet ally, even closer than the UK.

    It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

    I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.

    Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.

    That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.

    15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.

  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    Corbyn is tactically correct as remainers have nowhere else to go. . While the headline figure of Lab leavers might only be 21% of total Lab voters you can add to that the type of floating voter who might vote Tory or Ukip until they are certain Brexit will go ahead. Once they have that certainty they may well revert to Labour especially as other issues come to the fore.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

    I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.

    I could not see it because it wasn’t there. It was an accusation thrown at him from time to tome by people who had no other way of arguing with him. Fools, hypocrites and racists should not be immune to criticism just because they are women.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    HYUFD said:

    An Aussie poodle for Mr Trump. The Brexit loons want the UK to be next, of course. That’s taking back control alright!!!
    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/972242845636669440?s=21

    To be fair Australia is probably the USA's closet ally, even closer than the UK.

    It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on

    Yep, if the Aussies do what Trump tells them to do they’ll be spared sanctions. That’s the way to treat your closest allies!! But the Aussie right, like the UK right, looks like it is happy to do the President’s bidding.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,881
    edited March 2018
    HYUFD said:



    It has fought with the USA in all its wars over the last century, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq so not surprising the USA will be a bit more lenient to its closet allies, especially as it is really Chinese and Mexican and to a lesser extent German steel and aluminium imports it is really focused on

    What choice does Australia have? It's a sparsely populated and resource rich country in a rough neighbourhood. The fall of Singapore amply demonstrated lack of British capability to defend it so a pivot to the US on defence and security matters was the only viable option.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    +1
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption.

    That's an awkward threshold. What's his criteria for "contribute to NATO"?

    I don't know if you know this but a lot of UK defence planning is up in the air at the moment: the 2015 Spending Review expanded defence spending (yay) but the 2015 SDSR overcommitted (boo) so there was the 2017 National Security Capability Review (NSCR) which floated an absolute shitload of cuts/mergers (boo), so Gavin Williamson went postal (yay!) and the defence stuff is separated out into the 2018 Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) so might be preserved (yay) or might not (boo), nobody knows what's happening and stuff is still being sold off (so bye-bye HMS Ocean).


    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
    https://rusi.org/publication/whitehall-reports/decision-time-national-security-capability-review-2017–2018
    https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-modernising-defence-programme-‘get-programme’
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/pm-warned-tory-revolt-horrific-defence-cuts/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015

    We've always spent a lot on the RAF
    My opinion on this is a bit simple: defence spending is good, more defence spending is better. If the bus had had "We spend 350million a week to the EU: let's spend a shit-tonne on (thinks) F22s instead" I would have viewed Brexit differently. So more power to Gavin's elbow, to be frank. (Unless he fails, in which case sod him... :) )
    Why so Viewcode? Wouldn't it be better to spend on health or social care?
    You can't fly a hospital. What is wrong with you?
    Can I recommend you read Why Hospitals Should Fly by Nance, 2008
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Stormy Daniels releases intimate photo of Donald Trump.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BgG-bXlnCG8/?utm_source=ig_embed
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.

    Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.

    That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.

    15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.

    Ireland growing ever more reliant on the Uk as an export destination.

    The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products.
    The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.

    Irish Times..



  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Yes the disproving of her beliefs with evidence and facts was dreadful. I hope you are all ashamed of yourselves.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,075
    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.

    Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.

    That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US. Pro rata up the Anglo-Irish trade from the Irish side, and the UK is something like four times more important to Ireland than Britain's largest trading partners are to it.

    15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.

    Ireland growing ever more reliant on the Uk as an export destination.

    The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products.
    The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.

    Irish Times..



    Ireland is much less dependent on the UK market than it was pre EU. In 1970 we took 90% of their exports. It was EU membership that transformed Ireland from an isolationist, poor vassal state of the UK, exporting food and its people to the state it is now. It is a remarkable transformation.

    This is an interesting recent development too, showing Irish preparations for Brexit. Direct ferry links to the EU expanding:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/971289718058037248
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    rcs1000 said:

    Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.

    Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales

    Quick way to assist leave in spades

    The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.

    The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
    ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
    The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.

    Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
    Let them sue us
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Foxy said:

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    Although Varadkar is taking a risk, his position is rational if he thinks there is a fair chance of the UK accepting a deal.

    It's rational even if he doesn't, since a non-negotiated re-imposition of a customs border is likely to be very temporary, whereas a negotiated border with the UK outside the customs union is likely to become the new status quo.

    Exactly. No deal is certainly better than a bad deal from Ireland’s perspective.

    That depends what a bad deal looks like. Britain's trade with Ireland is huge: in 2016, £26.7bn of exports and £20.8bn of imports. There are only seven countries in the world that Britain imports more from, and only four that it exports more to. But if those numbers are big for the UK, they're gargantuan for Ireland, which has a population only about 1/14th that of the UK. The most that Britain imports from any country is the £75bn from Germany, and the most we export to is the £100bn to the US

    15% of Irish exports go to the UK. Around 50% of UK exports go to the EU. If the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal we lose access to and membership of hundreds of international agreements. Ireland keeps everything. A no deal Brexit is not a sustainable solution for the UK, so we would have to return to the negotiating table. So, short term pain for Ireland would probably lead to a longer term gain. Agreeing a sub-optimal deal, on the other hand, would be disadvantageous over the long term.

    Ireland growing ever more reliant on the Uk as an export destination.

    The figures show exports to Britain rose by 15 per cent to €1.3 billion in June alone. The main increase was in the exports of chemicals and related products.
    The value of Irish exports as a whole, however, fell by 8 per cent to €9.4 billion in June on foot of a big contraction in the value of “other transport equipment” exports, which include aircraft.

    Irish Times..



    Ireland is much less dependent on the UK market than it was pre EU. In 1970 we took 90% of their exports. It was EU membership that transformed Ireland from an isolationist, poor vassal state of the UK, exporting food and its people to the state it is now. It is a remarkable transformation.

    This is an interesting recent development too, showing Irish preparations for Brexit. Direct ferry links to the EU expanding:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/971289718058037248
    That’s good news - will lessen through haulage traffic in the Uk. The A14 is chokka with Irish lorries.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,075
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.

    Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales

    Quick way to assist leave in spades

    The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.

    The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
    ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
    The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.

    Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
    Let them sue us
    Do you not think that breaking our existing treaty obligations as a current EU member may taint our Brexit negotiations?

    It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MaxPB said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
    He didn’t like women either. Was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,075
    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
    He didn’t like women either. Was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many
    He did have a rather misogynistic streak, and did act as a bully at times. However he had some wit and as well as betting tips his knowledge of music and wine was good.

    I still owe him a pint from an outstanding bet.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.

    Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales

    Quick way to assist leave in spades

    The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.

    The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
    ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
    The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.

    Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
    Let them sue us
    Do you not think that breaking our existing treaty obligations as a current EU member may taint our Brexit negotiations?

    It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.
    Depends how it is structured
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just heard the EU threaten the UK if Trump offers the UK a deal on steel tariffs due to our contributions to NATO.

    Apparently there is some thought the UK will be exempt but the EU is intent on stopping our exemption and risking thousands of steel jobs, particularly in South Wales

    Quick way to assist leave in spades

    The US only gets 6% of UK steel exports, and what they get is all very high end. It's simply not economic to ship semi finished or hot rolled steel from South Wales to the US.

    The limited steel exports we do have to the US are high end alloys, and it is not clear how broad Trump's definition of "steel" is.
    ITV Wales featured the threat to the steel workers jobs with the Unions and workers expressing great concern.
    The threat surely comes from Trump, not the EU?
    Trump has stated Countries who are allies and contribute to NATO are eligible for exemption. The unelected in Brussels have told the UK the UK cannot be exempt if the EU is not.

    Hence fury with the EU if this actually happens
    Let them sue us
    Do you not think that breaking our existing treaty obligations as a current EU member may taint our Brexit negotiations?

    It would be wiser for free marketeers to criticise Trump than the EU over this.

    Prostrating yourself at the feet of Donald Trump and saying you’ll do as he tells you in order to avoid sanctions is an intriguing way to take back control. When he sees it works he’ll do it again, of course.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,523
    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    A clever bastard. But a complete and utter ****.
    He didn’t like women either. Was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many
    IMV he was unnecessarily and unforgivably aggressively rude to many people - if you got on the wrong side of him, he didn't care if you were male or female - he just went off on one.

    Like many of us, he was someone who occasionally required a filter between brain and keyboard.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    edited March 2018

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

    I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.

    I could not see it because it wasn’t there. It was an accusation thrown at him from time to tome by people who had no other way of arguing with him. Fools, hypocrites and racists should not be immune to criticism just because they are women.

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Not just Plato, he had form when it came to female posters.

    Rubbish. He was intolerant of stupidity, racism, hypocrisy, the far left, and deeply anti-Tory. The posters sex never came into it. He went too far on occasions, but he was smart, well-informed and often very funny. He continues to be all these things on Twitter.

    I hope for Twitter's sake he has curbed his misogyny there. Because it was a very clear part of his posting personality on here. Troubling that you couldn't see it.

    I could not see it because it wasn’t there. It was an accusation thrown at him from time to tome by people who had no other way of arguing with him. Fools, hypocrites and racists should not be immune to criticism just because they are women.

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    Nope, dislike of his politics

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    This summit is going to be like a hairdessing convention in Hell......

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43353274
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,523

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.

    In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.

    There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.

    In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.

    There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
    Is nylon a fibre?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,523
    rcs1000 said:

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.

    In reality, he was the anti-SeanT: they are both people who can be witty, but who can turn that power into something a little more nasty. It's no surprise that a confrontation between the matter and anti-matter was what caused Tim to leave this site.

    There are perhaps two differences: SeanT's insults tend to be more witty, and he is far less steadfast in his views than Tim was. But they're both cut from the same cloth, or at least cloth made from the same fibres..
    Is nylon a fibre?
    ;)

    And yes, there was some of that in it as well.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961


    Nope, dislike of his politics

    Nope, dislike of him being a complete and utter ****.

    Ask yourself why so few women still post here who posted even five years ago. Whereas there are large numbers of men who have lasted the course.

  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340


    Nope, dislike of his politics

    Nope, dislike of him being a complete and utter ****.

    Ask yourself why so few women still post here who posted even five years ago. Whereas there are large numbers of men who have lasted the course.

    Brexit has made the atmosphere even more toxic on here
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
    And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
    And those defending him seem to be politically alligned with the anti-semite party.

    I know where I am happy to be on this issue.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited March 2018

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
    And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
    That’s a myth. One week before the election she was claiming she had no idea who’d win and was just posting her fake news tweets for “balance”. Of course, afterwards she claimed she knew all along.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
    And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
    That’s a myth. One week before the election she was claiming she had no idea who’d win and was just posting her fake news tweets for “balance”. Of course, afterwards she claimed she knew all along.
    Whereas, one week before the election, the money was on Hillary.

    https://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/us-election-betfair-exchange-clinton-trump-prices-graphic-011116-51.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,523

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
    And those defending him seem to be politically alligned with the anti-semite party.

    I know where I am happy to be on this issue.
    Am I aligned with the anti-semite party?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    John_M said:

    viewcode said:

    AndyJS said:

    Tim hasn't lost his edge.

    Is GOsbourneGenius Tim?
    Tim who?
    Shut up, you're making me feel old and feel guilty about how many years of my life I've wasted on this site. All in six letters and a punctuation mark? You utter bar steward.

    My only consolation is how many more years than me some of the old-timers have been here, and that my post-count remains under 10,000. (Though it isn't counting all those vanished comments from the Disqus Era. Nor the whatever-it-was-that-we-had-for-all-those-years-before-Disqus.)
    My posts to this timesink date from about 2010/11. So Tim is a bit before my time. Could you in a sentence or two describe him and why the good folk of PB have such a reaction.
    Tim was a misogynistic wit. Good on betting matters, but very much a wanker.
    His delight in constantly belittling female posters on here - who had the temerity to question his infallibility - totally overrode whatever wit and insight he offered here. A complete and utter ****.
    He had set-to's with Plato but I'm not sure Tim was solely to blame. The woman who had to put up with most abuse was surely Snowflake, but that was from pb Tories who, rightly or wrongly, thought she was Yvette Cooper and thus (the thinking went) fair game.
    Plato was not exactly a boon to the site either, especially towards the end of her posting career when she turned into an alt-right Kremlin bot
    And - by delving into websites that no-one else was reading - spotted that Donald Trump was going to get elected. No, that was no boon to a betting site, no sirreeeeee.....
    That’s a myth. One week before the election she was claiming she had no idea who’d win and was just posting her fake news tweets for “balance”. Of course, afterwards she claimed she knew all along.
    Whereas, one week before the election, the money was on Hillary.

    https://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/us-election-betfair-exchange-clinton-trump-prices-graphic-011116-51.html
    Not mine! Trump was my second most profitable PB event ever after Brexit. It would just be nice to make money from an outcome I wanted to happen for once!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Not mine! Trump was my second most profitable PB event ever after Brexit. It would just be nice to make money from an outcome I wanted to happen for once!

    A well-stocked cellar gives you something with which to numb the pain of unhappy outcomes.

    But I wonder to what extent the likes of Plato's postings from the dark underbelly of Trumpistan gave you some comfort that your wager wasn't going to be pissed up a wall?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
    And those defending him seem to be politically alligned with the anti-semite party.

    I know where I am happy to be on this issue.
    Am I aligned with the anti-semite party?
    You tell me.....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Odd to see those who obdurately refuse to accept that Leave was founded on xenophobic lies, despite abundant evidence, so willing to accuse a long-absent poster of misogyny without citing any evidence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,523

    Strange how so many other posters could see what wasn't there then. We'll put it down as a pb.com mass hallucination.

    It's odd how most (all?) of the posters claiming it seem to be of the opposite political persuasion to him.
    And those defending him seem to be politically alligned with the anti-semite party.

    I know where I am happy to be on this issue.
    Am I aligned with the anti-semite party?
    You tell me.....
    It should be fairly obvious from my posts that I'm not a fan of the Labour party, particularly as it is currently constituted.

    If you have never noticed me repeatedly calling Labour 'the real nasty party', then it is likely you pay little enough attention to posts and posters to tell when someone is being misogynistic or not.

    Pay attention, boy! ;)
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    +1
This discussion has been closed.