Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Moving the dial. How Britain swung last year

1356

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Nigelb said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Sounds about right to me.
    These are weapons designed to be delivered on a mass scale, and it's not as though they have had a great deal of practice, or are unconstrained by simple happenstance, in carrying out an attack like this.
    Interesting points (though WFT does IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG mean?!).

    What chance the agents contaminated themselves btw - I presume the security services have done a trawl of the countries hospitals for any unexplained admissions?
    I took it to mean "I am about as far from being an expert as it is possible to get.....
    Yep.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    JWisemann said:

    Nigelb said:


    Knock yourself out, fellow traveller...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent
    Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and died in July 1992 after five years of deteriorating health….

    Note 'accidental exposure'. Presumably when deliberately used it would only take a miniscule amount to kill very quickly, given these alleged agents are supposed to be many times more powerful than VX and therefore lethal in the range of a few miligrams. So to try and fail to kill but still affect the target would seem to be quite difficult.
    Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to stabilize than the agents themselves, so this technique also made it possible to increase the shelf life of the agents. This has the disadvantage that careless preparation may produce a non-optimal agent.

    Unless prepared or delivered incompetently it seems.
    The last Russian assassination left a trail of Polonium across London, Europe and several aircraft.....
    British Airways in particular were not happy to discover they had been flying a radioactive aircraft around for a couple of weeks before it got cleaned up.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    President Putin really should cut back on the botox:

    https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/973433684945711104

    He looks really rattled doesn't he.
    "You seem surprised, but curiously your face does not move".....

    I get that. But it's also his manner exudes confidence - this is all going to plan. Can't imaging many politicians (e.g. May?, Trump?, Merkel?) reacting so cooly. Then again, he was trained by the KGB so perhaps it's not so surprising.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    1. Kick every Russian diplomat out of the UK - they're pretty much all FSB anyway.
    2. Shut down Russia Today's offices and studios in London, pull their broadcast licence.
    3. Start freezing bank accounts of Russians linked to their government in London.
    4. Clamp down on business and tourist visas for Russians.
    5. Ban direct flights from UK to Russia.
    6. Work to find other sources of gas for northern Europe by next winter.
    7. Lead international efforts for increased sanctions and have friendly countries also start freezing assets of Russians.
    8. Yes, lead international efforts to organise a sporting boycott - a farce of a World Cup with half the teams missing also has the nice side-effect of giving FIFA a bloody nose.

    Anything I've missed?
    6. Looks like a great idea - can't think why we haven't thought about discovering new gas supplies before. Good Job we've got 6 months to find them and get them on-line!

    Presumably though, it would be impossible for Russia to cut off supplies to Britain alone since it pretty much all comes via pipelines that serve the rest of Europe too.
    Yes, and because we have been so active in bringing our fracking fields online to give us energy independence incase Russian gets nasty in the future... oh wait!
    And guess who's been sponsoring the anti-fracking troublemakers all across Europe?

    Europe needs to get fracking quickly, and in the meantime look very carefully at what happens if the Russian pipeline gets cut off. Qatar might not be everyone's favourite gas supplier, but they don't go around Western countries with chemical weapons.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    tlg86 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Nigelb said:


    Knock yourself out, fellow traveller...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent
    Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and died in July 1992 after five years of deteriorating health….

    Note 'accidental exposure'. Presumably when deliberately used it would only take a miniscule amount to kill very quickly, given these alleged agents are supposed to be many times more powerful than VX and therefore lethal in the range of a few miligrams. So to try and fail to kill but still affect the target would seem to be quite difficult.
    Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to stabilize than the agents themselves, so this technique also made it possible to increase the shelf life of the agents. This has the disadvantage that careless preparation may produce a non-optimal agent.

    Unless prepared or delivered incompetently it seems.
    The last Russian assassination left a trail of Polonium across London, Europe and several aircraft.....
    I'm avoiding the West of England Line Class 158/159s at the moment, just in case.

    :)
    Those South West Trains South Western Railway trains are always spotlessly cleaned... every other year. :smile:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Nigelb said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Sounds about right to me.
    These are weapons designed to be delivered on a mass scale, and it's not as though they have had a great deal of practice, or are unconstrained by simple happenstance, in carrying out an attack like this.
    Interesting points (though WFT does IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG mean?!).

    What chance the agents contaminated themselves btw - I presume the security services have done a trawl of the countries hospitals for any unexplained admissions?
    I took it to mean "I am about as far from being an expert as it is possible to get.....
    Yep.
    Thanks - I'll stick to the Guardian Cryptic, it's easier!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    I don't know if the world cup boycott would be silly. You'd have to know a fair bit about internal Russian politics to know what the impact would be which I certainly don't. I can't help but feel that those who rule it out are just Engurland fans who don't want their summer ruined.
    In what world do FIFA think they should hold a world cup in a nation that holds and uses chemical weapons?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    philiph said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    I don't know if the world cup boycott would be silly. You'd have to know a fair bit about internal Russian politics to know what the impact would be which I certainly don't. I can't help but feel that those who rule it out are just Engurland fans who don't want their summer ruined.
    In what world do FIFA think they should hold a world cup in a nation that holds and uses chemical weapons?
    In a world where the same nation offers colossal bribes* to those making the decision.

    * allegedly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Pulpstar said:

    Putting university salaries into context.

    https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/973475645585010691

    Didn't realise UK VCs coached the talent pool for the richest sporting league in the world.
    But they are university employees though.
    But essentially funded through TV rights, rather than through government/student loans...
    https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/the-case-against-student-athletes/518739/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    The OECD really goes out of its way to win friends and influence people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43384718

    They announce today that in their assessment that the UK will have the slowest growth of the G20 this year. Their forecast is that the economy will grow by 1.3% which is seriously wrong even by their own feeble standards (probably by at least 0.5%). They also claim this will happen because inflation will rise (wrong) further squeezing incomes (wrong for the second half of the year).

    Even if they genuinely believed this nonsense did they really think that the UK Chancellor would welcome it being published on the day of the Spring Financial Statement. Even Corbyn surely can't miss this one.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    philiph said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    I don't know if the world cup boycott would be silly. You'd have to know a fair bit about internal Russian politics to know what the impact would be which I certainly don't. I can't help but feel that those who rule it out are just Engurland fans who don't want their summer ruined.
    In what world do FIFA think they should hold a world cup in a nation that holds and uses chemical weapons?
    This is FIFA we're talking about - the next WC is going to somewhere where it's 50 degrees in the shade during the summer and foreigners working there have to get an exit permit from their employer if they want to go on holiday.
  • Off topic, last night I resolved to give myself a break from PB for a few weeks, because it's become a bit addictive.

    But I can't, because it's interesting to see the collective thoughts of (mostly) intelligent people) on current affairs. And it's addictive, of course :smile:

    There are times when a break is good but PB is a fantastic forum for discussion, agreement/ disagreement, and for lots of breaking news and information.

    And many an opinion can shape ones own views , often in a good way, as I am sure you will agree
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    1. Kick every Russian diplomat out of the UK - they're pretty much all FSB anyway.
    2. Shut down Russia Today's offices and studios in London, pull their broadcast licence.
    3. Start freezing bank accounts of Russians linked to their government in London.
    4. Clamp down on business and tourist visas for Russians.
    5. Ban direct flights from UK to Russia.
    6. Work to find other sources of gas for northern Europe by next winter.
    7. Lead international efforts for increased sanctions and have friendly countries also start freezing assets of Russians.
    8. Yes, lead international efforts to organise a sporting boycott - a farce of a World Cup with half the teams missing also has the nice side-effect of giving FIFA a bloody nose.

    Anything I've missed?
    6. Looks like a great idea - can't think why we haven't thought about discovering new gas supplies before. Good Job we've got 6 months to find them and get them on-line!

    Presumably though, it would be impossible for Russia to cut off supplies to Britain alone since it pretty much all comes via pipelines that serve the rest of Europe too.
    Indeed. However, we haven't managed to get more gas storage in place despite talking about it for >>10 years including just after the two very severe winters 2009/10 and 10/11.

    We probably only escaped power cuts in the recent cold spell thanks to 10-12 GW of coal-fired power stations. We rightly plan to close these, because they're dirty.

    Gas-fired ones don't help unless they have a backup fuel tank or more gas storage is built. At peak times the supply is shut off to avoid domestic gas cuts.

    Denmark has 6 months of onshore gas storage, despite still having its own gas fields. This is in case a gas pipe has problems.

    The UK is reckless and incompetent. But governments get elected which either don't get the right advice or don't take it.

    Other than that, don't do 2. Just mock them. Satire is more powerful than banning things.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Anorak said:

    philiph said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    I don't know if the world cup boycott would be silly. You'd have to know a fair bit about internal Russian politics to know what the impact would be which I certainly don't. I can't help but feel that those who rule it out are just Engurland fans who don't want their summer ruined.
    In what world do FIFA think they should hold a world cup in a nation that holds and uses chemical weapons?
    In a world where the same nation offers colossal bribes* to those making the decision.

    * allegedly.
    ....and is not afraid to use nerve agents on those that piss it off. Like those not delivering on said alleged bribes.....
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    edited March 2018
    DavidL said:

    The OECD really goes out of its way to win friends and influence people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43384718

    They announce today that in their assessment that the UK will have the slowest growth of the G20 this year. Their forecast is that the economy will grow by 1.3% which is seriously wrong even by their own feeble standards (probably by at least 0.5%). They also claim this will happen because inflation will rise (wrong) further squeezing incomes (wrong for the second half of the year).

    Even if they genuinely believed this nonsense did they really think that the UK Chancellor would welcome it being published on the day of the Spring Financial Statement. Even Corbyn surely can't miss this one.

    Experts, eh? Cuh!

    EDIT: That said, Hammond might not be too upset. In his defence (bookmark THAT for its rarity value) the last thing Hammond wants with the Brexit negotations ongoing is to be seen to have lots of cash sloshing about, because the Boys from Brussels will just say "thank you very much, you can now afford to pay x billions more per annum for access to various parts of our set-up from April 2019...."
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    I assume they can withdraw the passport of an individual?
  • Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    No.

    But they have the ability to make life of professional football/The FA very difficult in other ways.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    Off topic, last night I resolved to give myself a break from PB for a few weeks, because it's become a bit addictive.

    But I can't, because it's interesting to see the collective thoughts of (mostly) intelligent people) on current affairs. And it's addictive, of course :smile:

    There are times when a break is good but PB is a fantastic forum for discussion, agreement/ disagreement, and for lots of breaking news and information.

    And many an opinion can shape ones own views , often in a good way, as I am sure you will agree
    Absolutely. Whilst I continue resolutely to be a left-of-centre Remainer, I do think I have begun to understand better what drives people to vote Tory (not always naked greed) or Leave (not racism).

    Anyway, I am going to be taking a break over Easter as we're off on another cruise (yay!), so I'll keep chipping in my numpty thoughts till then :-)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    There's also the question of who would replace them. I assume Italy as they were the highest ranked runners up who didn't win their play off.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    The govt can certainly cancel their passports and their flight.

    In reality a WC boycott needs to be co-ordinated with several other nations to be effective, and be announced at the last minute. If it's just England Putin will laugh, but if it's a dozen competitive teams he won't.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Undecided as to whether I'll bother with this, but those who want a fantasy F1 game, this might be up your street:
    https://twitter.com/Fantasy_GP/status/970005080450715648
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    They could advise against all travel to the country.

    There was a similar to do in 2003. The England cricketers wanted the government to do that with Zimbabwe which I think would have forced the ICC to move the game to South Africa (or at least made them think about it). In the end our cricketers did the decent thing and it cost them a place in the next round.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    The OECD really goes out of its way to win friends and influence people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43384718

    They announce today that in their assessment that the UK will have the slowest growth of the G20 this year. Their forecast is that the economy will grow by 1.3% which is seriously wrong even by their own feeble standards (probably by at least 0.5%). They also claim this will happen because inflation will rise (wrong) further squeezing incomes (wrong for the second half of the year).

    Even if they genuinely believed this nonsense did they really think that the UK Chancellor would welcome it being published on the day of the Spring Financial Statement. Even Corbyn surely can't miss this one.

    Experts, eh? Cuh!
    Their UK forecast for 2017 was 1%, 0.7% out (probably 0.8% once the balance of trade figures are sorted out). They are a joke.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Alastair, this is a great piece. I had been hoping to do some analysis like this after 2015, when, it seemed to me, there were two big splodges of red - one around London and one around Liverpool. But I never got round to it, and life is all about getting round to things.

    Anyway, my guess is that almost all of the map above - in England, anyway - can be explained by age profile. Cities haveyounger demographics of voters, cities swung more heavily towards Labour. It would be interesting to see where there are any outliers to this trend.

    In your point about housing: I have a vague theory that it is notso much that concerns about housing are making young people vote Labour but that the mere act of owning a house makes people more likely to vote Conservative.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. L, I like economists and their forecasts. They make my F1 predictions look good ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    edited March 2018

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    1. Kick every Russian diplomat out of the UK - they're pretty much all FSB anyway.
    2. Shut down Russia Today's offices and studios in London, pull their broadcast licence.
    3. Start freezing bank accounts of Russians linked to their government in London.
    4. Clamp down on business and tourist visas for Russians.
    5. Ban direct flights from UK to Russia.
    6. Work to find other sources of gas for northern Europe by next winter.
    7. Lead international efforts for increased sanctions and have friendly countries also start freezing assets of Russians.
    8. Yes, lead international efforts to organise a sporting boycott - a farce of a World Cup with half the teams missing also has the nice side-effect of giving FIFA a bloody nose.

    Anything I've missed?
    6. Looks like a great idea - can't think why we haven't thought about discovering new gas supplies before. Good Job we've got 6 months to find them and get them on-line!

    Presumably though, it would be impossible for Russia to cut off supplies to Britain alone since it pretty much all comes via pipelines that serve the rest of Europe too.
    Indeed. However, we haven't managed to get more gas storage in place despite talking about it for >>10 years including just after the two very severe winters 2009/10 and 10/11.

    We probably only escaped power cuts in the recent cold spell thanks to 10-12 GW of coal-fired power stations. We rightly plan to close these, because they're dirty.

    Gas-fired ones don't help unless they have a backup fuel tank or more gas storage is built. At peak times the supply is shut off to avoid domestic gas cuts.

    Denmark has 6 months of onshore gas storage, despite still having its own gas fields. This is in case a gas pipe has problems.

    The UK is reckless and incompetent. But governments get elected which either don't get the right advice or don't take it.

    Other than that, don't do 2. Just mock them. Satire is more powerful than banning things.
    Can't help feeling that this must cost Denmark a hell of a lot more than maybe asking some large users to turn the wick down once every 5 years or so.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    The govt can certainly cancel their passports and their flight.

    In reality a WC boycott needs to be co-ordinated with several other nations to be effective, and be announced at the last minute. If it's just England Putin will laugh, but if it's a dozen competitive teams he won't.
    The likelier route is for travel insurance to become massively expensive/impossible to get.... Same effect. Would you want to go to Russia with no backstop on your medical costs if there was an "incident"....?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    tlg86 said:

    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    They could advise against all travel to the country.

    There was a similar to do in 2003. The England cricketers wanted the government to do that with Zimbabwe which I think would have forced the ICC to move the game to South Africa (or at least made them think about it). In the end our cricketers did the decent thing and it cost them a place in the next round.
    Yes, and if the Foreign Office advise against all travel to a country then most travel insurance policies will be nullified and airlines would refuse to fly there. This would obviously impact on fans as well as the team.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    1. Kick every Russian diplomat out of the UK - they're pretty much all FSB anyway.
    2. Shut down Russia Today's offices and studios in London, pull their broadcast licence.
    3. Start freezing bank accounts of Russians linked to their government in London.
    4. Clamp down on business and tourist visas for Russians.
    5. Ban direct flights from UK to Russia.
    6. Work to find other sources of gas for northern Europe by next winter.
    7. Lead international efforts for increased sanctions and have friendly countries also start freezing assets of Russians.
    8. Yes, lead international efforts to organise a sporting boycott - a farce of a World Cup with half the teams missing also has the nice side-effect of giving FIFA a bloody nose.

    Anything I've missed?
    6. Looks like a great idea - can't think why we haven't thought about discovering new gas supplies before. Good Job we've got 6 months to find them and get them on-line!

    Presumably though, it would be impossible for Russia to cut off supplies to Britain alone since it pretty much all comes via pipelines that serve the rest of Europe too.
    Indeed. However, we haven't managed to get more gas storage in place despite talking about it for >>10 years including just after the two very severe winters 2009/10 and 10/11.

    We probably only escaped power cuts in the recent cold spell thanks to 10-12 GW of coal-fired power stations. We rightly plan to close these, because they're dirty.

    Gas-fired ones don't help unless they have a backup fuel tank or more gas storage is built. At peak times the supply is shut off to avoid domestic gas cuts.

    Denmark has 6 months of onshore gas storage, despite still having its own gas fields. This is in case a gas pipe has problems.

    The UK is reckless and incompetent. But governments get elected which either don't get the right advice or don't take it.

    Other than that, don't do 2. Just mock them. Satire is more powerful than banning things.
    The case for the Tidal Barrages just gets inexorably more undeniable....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    tlg86 said:

    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    They could advise against all travel to the country.

    There was a similar to do in 2003. The England cricketers wanted the government to do that with Zimbabwe which I think would have forced the ICC to move the game to South Africa (or at least made them think about it). In the end our cricketers did the decent thing and it cost them a place in the next round.
    I wonder why Thatcher didn't take that apporach for the 1980 Olympics?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, I've also prepared a map of the marginals. The Conservatives actually look to be worse-placed in the marginals.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    On topic, I've also prepared a map of the marginals. The Conservatives actually look to be worse-placed in the marginals.

    The map is great, thanks Alastair (and Viewcode). One question, can you drill into it to see the underlying data?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    They could advise against all travel to the country.

    There was a similar to do in 2003. The England cricketers wanted the government to do that with Zimbabwe which I think would have forced the ICC to move the game to South Africa (or at least made them think about it). In the end our cricketers did the decent thing and it cost them a place in the next round.
    Yes, and if the Foreign Office advise against all travel to a country then most travel insurance policies will be nullified and airlines would refuse to fly there. This would obviously impact on fans as well as the team.
    Airlines refusing to fly to Russia seems a bit far fetched to me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited March 2018

    On topic, I've also prepared a map of the marginals. The Conservatives actually look to be worse-placed in the marginals.

    For 2017 Tory marginals maybe, not for 2022 Tory marginals e.g. 7 out of the top 10 outside Scotland voted Leave, same as 2022 Labour marginals

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    1. Kick every Russian diplomat out of the UK - they're pretty much all FSB anyway.
    2. Shut down Russia Today's offices and studios in London, pull their broadcast licence.
    3. Start freezing bank accounts of Russians linked to their government in London.
    4. Clamp down on business and tourist visas for Russians.
    5. Ban direct flights from UK to Russia.
    6. Work to find other sources of gas for northern Europe by next winter.
    7. Lead international efforts for increased sanctions and have friendly countries also start freezing assets of Russians.
    8. Yes, lead international efforts to organise a sporting boycott - a farce of a World Cup with half the teams missing also has the nice side-effect of giving FIFA a bloody nose.

    Anything I've missed?
    6. Looks like a great idea - can't think why we haven't thought about discovering new gas supplies before. Good Job we've got 6 months to find them and get them on-line!

    Presumably though, it would be impossible for Russia to cut off supplies to Britain alone since it pretty much all comes via pipelines that serve the rest of Europe too.
    The UK doesn't really use Russian gas. It's puts us in a different position to the rest of Europe who are almost completely reliant on it.
  • Off topic, last night I resolved to give myself a break from PB for a few weeks, because it's become a bit addictive.

    But I can't, because it's interesting to see the collective thoughts of (mostly) intelligent people) on current affairs. And it's addictive, of course :smile:

    There are times when a break is good but PB is a fantastic forum for discussion, agreement/ disagreement, and for lots of breaking news and information.

    And many an opinion can shape ones own views , often in a good way, as I am sure you will agree
    Absolutely. Whilst I continue resolutely to be a left-of-centre Remainer, I do think I have begun to understand better what drives people to vote Tory (not always naked greed) or Leave (not racism).

    Anyway, I am going to be taking a break over Easter as we're off on another cruise (yay!), so I'll keep chipping in my numpty thoughts till then :-)
    Hope you have a great cruise. Going on 14 day Western Med cruise in May and have booked a 24 day Southampton to Southampton via Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New England and New York for September 2019 as an 80th birthday present for my beloved lady wife who will hit 80 in November 2019.

    For all the travel and cruises we have been on my wife has always dreamt of sailing into New York
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    They could advise against all travel to the country.

    There was a similar to do in 2003. The England cricketers wanted the government to do that with Zimbabwe which I think would have forced the ICC to move the game to South Africa (or at least made them think about it). In the end our cricketers did the decent thing and it cost them a place in the next round.
    Yes, and if the Foreign Office advise against all travel to a country then most travel insurance policies will be nullified and airlines would refuse to fly there. This would obviously impact on fans as well as the team.
    Airlines refusing to fly to Russia seems a bit far fetched to me.
    If their insurance gets pulled they won't have a lot of choice in the matter.

    I think It's only BA and two Russian airlines (Aeroflot and S7) that currently fly from UK to Russia.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    On topic, I've also prepared a map of the marginals. The Conservatives actually look to be worse-placed in the marginals.

    What data source are you using. I'm trying to compare 2015 vs 2017 actual numbers (Ben Walker has % swings which isn't quite what I'm looking for and @AndyJS unfortunately uses a slightly differing parliamentary naming convention (Norfolk North vs North Norfolk; The Wrekin vs Wrekin, The etc)
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    philiph said:

    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    I assume they can withdraw the passport of an individual?
    That would be a rather chilling state of affairs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    I'm sure that Hammond is hoping that independent economic forecasts for the medium term are low-balled. Faced with

    a) glowing prospects for the economy post March 2019

    b) so-so prospects for the economy post March 2019

    c) shit-house prospects for the economy post March 2019,

    he will probably take c) in the hope that it is actually b) and dream of a). Only a) has political downside if it doesn't deliver. c) is already factored in for the Remainers, and you have to get to a good distance from March 2019 before even the rose-tinted spectacle wearing Brexiteers think a) will happen.

  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Sandpit said:

    Jonathan said:

    deleted

    del.
    6. Looks like a great idea - can't think why we haven't thought about discovering new gas supplies before. Good Job we've got 6 months to find them and get them on-line!

    Presumably though, it would be impossible for Russia to cut off supplies to Britain alone since it pretty much all comes via pipelines that serve the rest of Europe too.
    Indeed. However, we haven't managed to get more gas storage in place despite talking about it for >>10 years including just after the two very severe winters 2009/10 and 10/11.

    We probably only escaped power cuts in the recent cold spell thanks to 10-12 GW of coal-fired power stations. We rightly plan to close these, because they're dirty.

    Gas-fired ones don't help unless they have a backup fuel tank or more gas storage is built. At peak times the supply is shut off to avoid domestic gas cuts.

    Denmark has 6 months of onshore gas storage, despite still having its own gas fields. This is in case a gas pipe has problems.

    The UK is reckless and incompetent. But governments get elected which either don't get the right advice or don't take it.

    Other than that, don't do 2. Just mock them. Satire is more powerful than banning things.
    The case for the Tidal Barrages just gets inexorably more undeniable....
    Long-term lagoons are good, but a bit slow for next winter if we want to close the coal-fired plants. The national grid came close to crashing.

    The government's acquired all the 'disadvantages' of state ownership of energy, with none of the advantages

    http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/greg-clarks-energy-agenda/
  • HistorianHistorian Posts: 23
    Britain would swing if Corbyn allright, ever got his hands on the economy -swing in the wind.

    Pundits often forget that 2017 was a one off election. Many remainers held their noses and voted for Corbyn Labour to stop a no deal Brexit. Many older people abstained as a protest against May's dementia tax etc.

    Corbyn supporters should not get excited in the belief that the 2022 election will continue from where the 2017 left off: it will be very different, post Brexit, and post May. Older people will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn-and they are in the majority.

    Prepare for the 2022 wrinkleyquake!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    JWisemann said:

    So has any concrete proof yet been offered that the Russian government was responsible for the bizarre failure to kill two people with so-called nerve agents then?

    The official story has more holes than an Aberdeen fisherman's nets.

    Or are we all happy to bang along the drums to our already massively discredited feral overlords' latest attempt to whip up sentiment against whatever the current official state enemy may be (we have always been at war with Eurasia)?

    Amazing to see grown men and women acting like kids cheering for their favourite WWF wrestler.

    TThere’s that ‘implausible deniability’. Your reference to feral overlords is laughable, and of course no one will ever prove 100% something, in fact May’s statement offered two plausible options given the agent involved, but just be bloody honest and do what the Russians would do if in indeed they did sanction this act - never accept anything will be proof, and pretend everyone else is a Cold War fantasist.
  • Historian said:

    Britain would swing if Corbyn allright, ever got his hands on the economy -swing in the wind.

    Pundits often forget that 2017 was a one off election. Many remainers held their noses and voted for Corbyn Labour to stop a no deal Brexit. Many older people abstained as a protest against May's dementia tax etc.

    Corbyn supporters should not get excited in the belief that the 2022 election will continue from where the 2017 left off: it will be very different, post Brexit, and post May. Older people will queue round the corner to stop Corbyn-and they are in the majority.

    Prepare for the 2022 wrinkleyquake!

    What’s thr polling source for your assertions that older people abstained and that Remainers held their nose to vote for Corbyn?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Historian said:

    Many older people abstained as a protest against May's dementia tax etc.

    Except the BES study recently published (the one that said that the "youthquake" didn't happen) found that pensioner turnout was UP on 2015.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited March 2018

    JWisemann said:

    Nigelb said:


    Knock yourself out, fellow traveller...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent
    Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and died in July 1992 after five years of deteriorating health….

    Note 'accidental exposure'. Presumably when deliberately used it would only take a miniscule amount to kill very quickly, given these alleged agents are supposed to be many times more powerful than VX and therefore lethal in the range of a few miligrams. So to try and fail to kill but still affect the target would seem to be quite difficult.
    Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to stabilize than the agents themselves, so this technique also made it possible to increase the shelf life of the agents. This has the disadvantage that careless preparation may produce a non-optimal agent.

    Unless prepared or delivered incompetently it seems.
    The last Russian assassination left a trail of Polonium across London, Europe and several aircraft.....
    Pah, you call that proof. That’s the feral overlords talking.
  • kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Nigelb said:


    Knock yourself out, fellow traveller...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent
    Their effect on humans was demonstrated by the accidental exposure of Andrei Zheleznyakov, one of the scientists involved in their development, to the residue of an unspecified Novichok agent while working in a Moscow laboratory in May 1987. He was critically injured and took ten days to recover consciousness after the incident. He lost the ability to walk and was treated at a secret clinic in Leningrad for three months afterwards. The agent caused permanent harm, with effects that included "chronic weakness in his arms, a toxic hepatitis that gave rise to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, spells of severe depression, and an inability to read or concentrate that left him totally disabled and unable to work." He never recovered and died in July 1992 after five years of deteriorating health….

    Note 'accidental exposure'. Presumably when deliberately used it would only take a miniscule amount to kill very quickly, given these alleged agents are supposed to be many times more powerful than VX and therefore lethal in the range of a few miligrams. So to try and fail to kill but still affect the target would seem to be quite difficult.
    Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to stabilize than the agents themselves, so this technique also made it possible to increase the shelf life of the agents. This has the disadvantage that careless preparation may produce a non-optimal agent.

    Unless prepared or delivered incompetently it seems.
    The last Russian assassination left a trail of Polonium across London, Europe and several aircraft.....
    Pah, you call that proof
    It’s further proof that BA are shite.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eagles, govno, even :p

    [I don't know much Russian, but I believe that's 'shit'].
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic, I've also prepared a map of the marginals. The Conservatives actually look to be worse-placed in the marginals.

    What data source are you using. I'm trying to compare 2015 vs 2017 actual numbers (Ben Walker has % swings which isn't quite what I'm looking for and @AndyJS unfortunately uses a slightly differing parliamentary naming convention (Norfolk North vs North Norfolk; The Wrekin vs Wrekin, The etc)
    I took the data from the BBC website results and calculated the swings for myself. Any errors are all mine.

    Naming convention variations are the devil's own work.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    I see Russia Today has been peddling the conspiracy theory that Skripal and his daughter took a drug overdose. Presumably Corbynistas are still maintaining the line it is just a regular TV channel and Corbyn is right to overrule McDonnell's proposed boycott?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    So has any concrete proof yet been offered that the Russian government was responsible for the bizarre failure to kill two people with so-called nerve agents then?

    The official story has more holes than an Aberdeen fisherman's nets.

    Or are we all happy to bang along the drums to our already massively discredited feral overlords' latest attempt to whip up sentiment against whatever the current official state enemy may be (we have always been at war with Eurasia)?

    Amazing to see grown men and women acting like kids cheering for their favourite WWF wrestler.

    TThere’s that ‘implausible deniability’. Your reference to feral overlords is laughable, and of course no one will ever prove 100% something, in fact May’s statement offered two plausible options given the agent involved, but just be bloody honest and do what the Russians would do if in indeed they did sanction this act - never accept anything will be proof, and pretend everyone else is a Cold War fantasist.
    There isnt really concrete proof. Its an accusation, which of course the Russians will deny.



  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Elliot, it's fair enough. I had a small spot of vomiting a few weeks ago and treated myself with paracetamol. Unfortunately, one time I accidentally opened the wrong box and very nearly had two capsules of VX by mistake. It's easily done.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    So much then for the idea that we'd be safer outside the EU, because of NATO. Then again, the EU army doesnt look like it will come to fruition anytime soon.

    We're cutting a pretty lonely figure in the world, right now.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    So has any concrete proof yet been offered that the Russian government was responsible for the bizarre failure to kill two people with so-called nerve agents then?

    The official story has more holes than an Aberdeen fisherman's nets.

    Or are we all happy to bang along the drums to our already massively discredited feral overlords' latest attempt to whip up sentiment against whatever the current official state enemy may be (we have always been at war with Eurasia)?

    Amazing to see grown men and women acting like kids cheering for their favourite WWF wrestler.

    TThere’s that ‘implausible deniability’. Your reference to feral overlords is laughable, and of course no one will ever prove 100% something, in fact May’s statement offered two plausible options given the agent involved, but just be bloody honest and do what the Russians would do if in indeed they did sanction this act - never accept anything will be proof, and pretend everyone else is a Cold War fantasist.
    These people are equivalent to birthers and Holocaust deniers. There will never be evidence good enough for them to turn against their beloved Russia, Iran, Syria etc. What matters is these groups are anti-Western and thus always should be excused. They don't give a damn about the actual democrats and liberals in them. Heroes like Nemtsov were invisible to them.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    Bad news for the Baltics:

    Whether NATO is capable of such focus is debatable. Its southern members worry more about refugee flows; France is fighting an insurgency in the Sahel; Germany’s new coalition agreement relegated the (wretched) state of its armed forces to page 156 of a 177-page document. Mr Putin’s priorities are very different.

    https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21738386-atlantic-alliance-ill-prepared-deter-russian-aggression-russias-conventional-forces
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    Trump is a passing phenomenon. He won't survive past 2020. He barely scraped wins in the Midwest and a district he won by 20 points is on the edge of turning blue tomorrow.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/973514431333355522?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-43345440

    I genuinely think the Director of the IFS, no less, has got this wrong.

    The OBR will probably announce modest cuts in anticipated borrowing, to likely be outperformed at outturn.

    But even so the new line will be comfortably between the two.

    Borrowing in 2017/18 for example will actually hit the green line (or come very close if the OBR very cautious)
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    John_M said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
    I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,749

    Has anyone else commented on the significant swing to the Tories in Scotland.

    The Scottish Tories talk of little else..... ;-)
    what did the 2015 map look like?
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    I hadn't appreciated that Alan Roden, SLAB's Communication's Director, had parted company. Interestingly when he was at SLAB he prohibited RT contact:

    https://labourhame.com/putin-propaganda/

    Before SLAB he was the DM Scottish Editor.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    Bad news for the Baltics:

    Whether NATO is capable of such focus is debatable. Its southern members worry more about refugee flows; France is fighting an insurgency in the Sahel; Germany’s new coalition agreement relegated the (wretched) state of its armed forces to page 156 of a 177-page document. Mr Putin’s priorities are very different.

    https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21738386-atlantic-alliance-ill-prepared-deter-russian-aggression-russias-conventional-forces
    ...all part of the Russian strategy to destabalise the western military, political and economic alliance. Brexit, Trump was all part of this strategy, now coming to fruition.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
    I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
    The question is 'what's the point'? If I'm targeting an individual and (here's the rub) wish to minimise collateral damage, it's easier just to shoot them.

    On your general point, of course it's possible to design an applicator for a bio- or chem- weapon for individual targets.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Elliot said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    Trump is a passing phenomenon. He won't survive past 2020. He barely scraped wins in the Midwest and a district he won by 20 points is on the edge of turning blue tomorrow.
    Dura_Ace was talking about interests, not personalities. The UK’s interests are becoming ever more aligned with our European neighbours, the Brexit spasm notwithstanding.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    nielh said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    Bad news for the Baltics:

    Whether NATO is capable of such focus is debatable. Its southern members worry more about refugee flows; France is fighting an insurgency in the Sahel; Germany’s new coalition agreement relegated the (wretched) state of its armed forces to page 156 of a 177-page document. Mr Putin’s priorities are very different.

    https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21738386-atlantic-alliance-ill-prepared-deter-russian-aggression-russias-conventional-forces
    ...all part of the Russian strategy to destabalise the western military, political and economic alliance. Brexit, Trump was all part of this strategy, now coming to fruition.
    To what end? We're long past the days when 1st Guards Armoured would be pouring through the Fulda gap.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,678

    Sean_F said:

    JWisemann said:

    So has any concrete proof yet been offered that the Russian government was responsible for the bizarre failure to kill two people with so-called nerve agents then?

    The official story has more holes than an Aberdeen fisherman's nets.

    Or are we all happy to bang along the drums to our already massively discredited feral overlords' latest attempt to whip up sentiment against whatever the current official state enemy may be (we have always been at war with Eurasia)?

    Amazing to see grown men and women acting like kids cheering for their favourite WWF wrestler.

    As a matter if interest, what do you think happened to Malaysia Flight 17 ?
    It was destroyed by Mossad.
    No, Finchley Road was behind it.
    I'm afraid you're all wrong. It was the Soviets that did it.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
    I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
    The question is 'what's the point'? If I'm targeting an individual and (here's the rub) wish to minimise collateral damage, it's easier just to shoot them.

    On your general point, of course it's possible to design an applicator for a bio- or chem- weapon for individual targets.
    Right so, we must conclude that the purpose of the attack was not only to target the guy himself, but also ensure that other targets knew they were vulnerable.

    If he'd been shot we could have played this as a robbery gone wrong or something
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
    I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
    The question is 'what's the point'? If I'm targeting an individual and (here's the rub) wish to minimise collateral damage, it's easier just to shoot them.

    On your general point, of course it's possible to design an applicator for a bio- or chem- weapon for individual targets.
    Right so, we must conclude that the purpose of the attack was not only to target the guy himself, but also ensure that other targets knew they were vulnerable.

    If he'd been shot we could have played this as a robbery gone wrong or something
    Yes, it's attaching a note to the attack saying 'state actor woz here'.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,749
    Danny565 said:

    A question about a potential World Cup boycott. Does the government even have the power to ban the England players from going to play in it?

    Only if they are ready to accept being banned from all FIFA/UEFA competitions including the Champions League.
  • Stop, Hammond time.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
    I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
    The question is 'what's the point'? If I'm targeting an individual and (here's the rub) wish to minimise collateral damage, it's easier just to shoot them.

    On your general point, of course it's possible to design an applicator for a bio- or chem- weapon for individual targets.
    They could ask the Bulgarians to lend them an umbrella for instance.
  • I laughed out loud at this. Phil's had his shredded wheat this morning.

    @JamesLiamCook: Philip Hammond gives shoutouts to top apps TransferWise, Citymapper, and Matt Hancock in his Spring statement
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    £45bn???

    The OBR have gone nuts.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    John_M said:

    nielh said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    nielh said:

    For now, though, we are presented with the most astounding yet Trump default from traditional U.S. alliances and leadership. At Monday’s White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders rebuffed repeated questions about whether the U.S. even supported the U.K. finding of fact about Russian responsibility.

    As the default continues and expands, the evidence accumulates: Trump simply will not act to protect the U.S. and its allies against even Russian aggression, even on their own territory, even in the form of attempted murder.

    Trump’s inaction speaks louder than any words. It is a confession for all to hear.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/us-russia-nato-uk/555407/

    Transatlantic alliance not looking in good shape at the moment.
    Beginning of the end for NATO. It's been on the cards for a while. The interests of its North American and European components are becoming ever more divergent.
    Bad news for the Baltics:a

    Whether NATO is capable of such focus is debatable. Its southern members worry more about refugee flows; France is fighting an insurgency in the Sahel; Germany’s new coalition agreement relegated the (wretched) state of its armed forces to page 156 of a 177-page document. Mr Putin’s priorities are very different.

    https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21738386-atlantic-alliance-ill-prepared-deter-russian-aggression-russias-conventional-forces
    ...all part of the Russian strategy to destabalise the western military, political and economic alliance. Brexit, Trump was all part of this strategy, now coming to fruition.
    To what end? We're long past the days when 1st Guards Armoured would be pouring through the Fulda gap.
    The ultimate purpose seems to be to have the entire continent of Europe subsumed in to a Russian 'sphere' of influence, thus enriching it at our expense.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Miss Vance, the timing is interesting.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    As I predicted when he started. He didn't last long.

    Mind you no one else does either.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    edited March 2018
    Jonathan said:

    So May made a threat. Does anyone know what she has in mind? The World Cup boycott is silly and self-defeating, expelling a few diplomats would be weak. What is she going to do?

    ObYesMinisterQuote:

    Well, if we do nothing, that means we implicitly agree with the speech[action]. If we issue a statement, we'll just look foolish. If we lodge a protest, it'll be ignored. We can't cut off aid, because we don't give them any. If we break off diplomatic relations, then we can't negotiate the oil rig contracts [free trade agreement]. And if we declare war, it might just look as though we were over-reacting!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Donald J. Trump

    Verified account

    @realDonaldTrump
    Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
    More
    Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Cooke, Yes (Prime) Minister is absolutely fantastic, and very insightful.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Any update on stopwatches?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Danny565 said:

    Donald J. Trump

    Verified account

    @realDonaldTrump
    Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
    More
    Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!

    Yuck.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    I guess we now know if our closest ally is going to back us over the Skripal affair...
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    As I predicted when he started. He didn't last long.

    Mind you no one else does either.
    Guess this means the lunatics are running the asylum.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    Still waiting for someone to explain how an attack with a supposedly extremely powerful nerve agent has so far yet to have killed a single person.

    Well, being discovered just six miles from one of the best facilities in the world for dealing with nerve agents might have helped.

    How lies the snow in Moscow, comrade? Or can you not see outside from your troll farm bunker?
    I doubt the proximity to Porton Down helped the two initial victims much, at least initially.

    It's much more likely to be incompetent delivery. If you remember the Litvinenko (sp?) case, the agents who delivered it were utterly incompetent, and it took them a couple of goes - and in the process they left a radioactive trail across London.

    IAAAFFBAEAIIPTG, but may the chemical have been inexpertly delivered, so they got a sub-lethal dose?
    Indeed, incompetent delivery could happen. Of all the silly conspiracy theory bollocks out there, the idea it cannot have been Russia because it hasn’t yet succeeded is among the stupidest. Governments, intelligence agencies and operatives never cock up do they? What a load of horseshit.

    Perhaps it was not Russia, despite the targets and the method making suspicion reasonable, but ‘they didn’t succeed (yet)’ is bloody idiotic as reasoning for why it couldn’t be them.
    Nerve agents aren't designed to be conveniently applied to individual targets. Like the Litvinenko killing, the weapon is as interesting as the object.
    I know we're used to things like Sarin which are designed to be spread widely, but why can't you have a nerve agent designed to apply to individual targets?
    The question is 'what's the point'? If I'm targeting an individual and (here's the rub) wish to minimise collateral damage, it's easier just to shoot them.

    On your general point, of course it's possible to design an applicator for a bio- or chem- weapon for individual targets.
    Right so, we must conclude that the purpose of the attack was not only to target the guy himself, but also ensure that other targets knew they were vulnerable.

    If he'd been shot we could have played this as a robbery gone wrong or something
    Yes, it's attaching a note to the attack saying 'state actor woz here'.
    More like '... nice little country you've got here; be a shame if anything were to happen to it.'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Danny565 said:

    Donald J. Trump

    Verified account

    @realDonaldTrump
    Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
    More
    Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!

    Charmers...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel
    Haspel ran a "black site" CIA prison located in Thailand in 2002.[6][7] The site was codenamed "Cat’s Eye" and held suspected al Qaeda members Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah for a time. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture specifies that during their detention at the site they were waterboarded and interrogated using no longer authorized methods.[8][9] Declassified CIA cables specify that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in a month, was sleep deprived, kept in a "large box", had his head slammed against a wall and he lost his left eye. Zubaydah was deemed, by the CIA interrogators, to not be in possession of any useful intelligence (Interrogation of Abu Zubaydah).[10]

    Haspel later was the chief of staff to Jose Rodriguez, who headed the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. In his memoir, Rodriguez wrote that Haspel had "drafted a cable" in 2005 ordering the destruction of dozens of videotapes made at the black site in Thailand...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Pompeo has supported sanctions on Russia so this is certainly not a pro Putin shift

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article120443838.html
This discussion has been closed.