Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The last 24 hours on the Betfair exchange Brexit betting marke

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited March 20 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The last 24 hours on the Betfair exchange Brexit betting market

Betdata.io

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,997
    First, like Leave.
  • Mortimer said:

    First, like Leave.

    I miss the like button
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    edited March 20
    Fecund, like Clinton. ;)

    (Allegedly...)

    Oh dear, I was actually turd.
  • Until yesterday I was fairly certain dodgy Indian bookies were using this market to launder their money
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Is this movement particularly surprising? Brexit had a reasonably good day yesterday, but the arguments remain.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    I miss the discussion about fishing. Could be a mnore interesting thread than AV.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,840
    edited March 20
    Wow, someone has a lower opinion of David Davis than me, didn't think that was possible.

    I stick to my assertion that David Davis is as useful as a marzipan dildo.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,997
    O/T, but sort of related to the previous thread discussion. I miss my favourite chippy - on Theobolds Rd - they used to use beef dripping to cook the chips. Mmmm
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    CPI down to 2.7% - good news

    Looks as if earnings are catching up inflation
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316
    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    CPI down to 2.7% - good news

    Looks as if earnings are catching up inflation

    Didn't Mark Carney say inflation was going to go up this year?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,647
    edited March 20
    Mortimer said:

    O/T, but sort of related to the previous thread discussion. I miss my favourite chippy - on Theobolds Rd - they used to use beef dripping to cook the chips. Mmmm

    Do you mean Fryer’s Delight? Has that gone?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,676
    Fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    What the fishing saga tells us, as well as that with the NI border in the divorssarily see their interests being bottom of the list in quite the same way.

    Certainly HMG and the civil service are London centric.

    But the idea that the fishing industry is neglected by govt?
    It employs c. 10,000 people and is worth about 1 billion pounds.
    So a fraction of say the hairdresser industry or the pet food market.

    Yet they generate national headlines, get Ministers going to Brussels to fight for their quotas, have divisions of civil servants mobilised to produce statistics and lobby for them.
    The EU sell 4bn a year of our fish, so the industry could be five times as large if we actually, you know, kept our own property.

    The fishing industry certainly are spoilt - they have whole departments of civil servants mobilised to sell them out.
    The onshore jobs that used to come with the fish are actually far more numerous than the fishermen themselves. But yet another problem is that we have as a nation got out of the way of eating fish in large quantities. We now prefer meat. Would we really go back if the fish were being landed here?
    I think we might, actually.

    There's a much greater diversity of fish on restaurants menus now than i remember when I was growing up, and cooked in more interesting and flavoursome ways.
    You mean filet-o-fish with or without tartare sauce?
    Yuk.
    Brexiter advocating increased consumption of fish sneers at what must be huge element of fish consumption, albeit by proles.

    Shocked, I tell you.
    Not one of your better trolling efforts.
    Yet your comment was very telling. In theory advocating something but disliking it in practice.
    ' In New Zealand and the United Kingdom Filet-O-Fish contains hoki instead of Alaska pollock. '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filet-O-Fish

    As Filet-O-Fish seem to contain fish imported from the opposite side of the planet then their consumption does nothing to help the UK fishing industry.

    So CR's reaction was, inadvertently or not, the correct one.
    Yes it comes from Asia Pacific but look at it as a gateway fish. The more people try it the more they are likely to then branch out and want the sort of fish that @Casino_Royale would be happy to be seen eating.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,945

    Wow, someone has a lower opinion of David Davis than me, didn't think that was possible.

    I stick to my assertion that David Davis is as useful as a marzipan dildo.
    OMG I just had a memory flash back to the reports of Mars bar parties al la Marianne Faithful
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    Is he actually 'dumb', or does he just know what *his* audience will believe?

    (I don't think you or I are particularly his audience).
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,494
    edited March 20
    tlg86 said:

    CPI down to 2.7% - good news

    Looks as if earnings are catching up inflation

    Didn't Mark Carney say inflation was going to go up this year?
    No, the expectation is that inflation (per HMT) will fall back to ~2.0% by the end of the year.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    This is my biggest betting play at the moment.

    Basically, yes is still hugely undercooked because most of the punters on the market don’t like Brexit and assume it will collapse.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,795

    CPI down to 2.7% - good news

    Looks as if earnings are catching up inflation

    No communiques from your contacts among the fisher folk of the NE Big G? Now is the time for you to come into your own.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    What the fishing saga tells us, as well as that with the NI border in the divorssarily see their interests being bottom of the list in quite the same way.

    Certainly HMG and the civil service are London centric.

    But the idea

    Yet they generate national headlines, get Ministers going to Brussels to fight for their quotas, have divisions of civil servants mobilised to produce statistics and lobby for them.
    The EU sell 4bn a year of our fish, so the industry could be five times as large if we actually, you know, kept our own property.

    The fishing industry certainly are spoilt - they have whole departments of civil servants mobilised to sell them out.
    The onshore jobs that used to come with the fish are actually far more numerous than the fishermen themselves. But yet another problem is that we have as a nation got out of the way of eating fish in large quantities. We now prefer meat. Would we really go back if the fish were being landed here?
    I think we might, actually.

    There's a much greater diversity of fish on restaurants menus now than i remember when I was growing up, and cooked in more interesting and flavoursome ways.
    You mean filet-o-fish with or without tartare sauce?
    Yuk.
    Shocked, I tell you.
    Not one of your better trolling efforts.
    Yet your comment was very telling. In theory advocating something but disliking it in practice.
    ' In New Zealand and the United Kingdom Filet-O-Fish contains hoki instead of Alaska pollock. '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filet-O-Fish

    As Filet-O-Fish seem to contain fish imported from the opposite side of the planet then their consumption does nothing to help the UK fishing industry.

    So CR's reaction was, inadvertently or not, the correct one.
    Yes it comes from Asia Pacific but look at it as a gateway fish. The more people try it the more they are likely to then branch out and want the sort of fish that @Casino_Royale would be happy to be seen eating.
    I just said I didn’t like fillet-o-fish. Now, you think you “have” me because of it. It’s pretty desperate really.

    Still, I can’t wait to be treated to that six-course meal with the finest wines the world has to offer you promised me.

    Please get a move on and book it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:


    Certainly HMG and the civil service are London centric.

    But the idea that the fishing industry is neglected by govt?
    It employs c. 10,000 people and is worth about 1 billion pounds.
    So a fraction of say the hairdresser industry or the pet food market.

    Yet they generate national headlines, get Ministers going to Brussels to fight for their quotas, have divisions of civil servants mobilised to produce statistics and lobby for them.

    The EU sell 4bn a year of our fish, so the industry could be five times as large if we actually, you know, kept our own property.

    The fishing industry certainly are spoilt - they have whole departments of civil servants mobilised to sell them out.
    The onshore jobs that used to come with the fish are actually far more numerous than the fishermen themselves. But yet another problem is that we have as a nation got out of the way of eating fish in large quantities. We now prefer meat. Would we really go back if the fish were being landed here?
    I think we might, actually.

    There's a much greater diversity of fish on restaurants menus now than i remember when I was growing up, and cooked in more interesting and flavoursome ways.
    You mean filet-o-fish with or without tartare sauce?
    Yuk.
    Brexiter advocating increased consumption of fish sneers at what must be huge element of fish consumption, albeit by proles.

    Shocked, I tell you.
    Not one of your better trolling efforts.
    Yet your comment was very telling. In theory advocating something but disliking it in practice.
    ' In New Zealand and the United Kingdom Filet-O-Fish contains hoki instead of Alaska pollock. '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filet-O-Fish

    As Filet-O-Fish seem to contain fish imported from the opposite side of the planet then their consumption does nothing to help the UK fishing industry.

    So CR's reaction was, inadvertently or not, the correct one.
    Yes it comes from Asia Pacific but look at it as a gateway fish. The more people try it the more they are likely to then branch out and want the sort of fish that @Casino_Royale would be happy to be seen eating.
    People might switch from fishfingers to fish and chips but I doubt there's much of a movement from FOFs to Dover Sole.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    He might be, although there is fierce competition from recent Prime Ministers who triggered Article 50 with no idea of the end-game, or who called (and lost) a referendum on EU membership without first nailing down what was the alternative, and who fought said referendum using the same overblown Project Fear tactics which had almost lost Scotland.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,676
    edited March 20

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:


    Certainly market.

    Yet they generate national headlines, get Ministers going to Brussels to fight for their quotas, have divisions of civil servants mobilised to produce statistics and lobby for them.

    The EU sell 4bn a year of our fish, so the industry could be five times as large if we actually, you know, kept our own property.

    The fishing industry certainly are spoilt - they have whole departments of civil servants mobilised to sell them out.
    The onshore jobs that used to come with the fish are actually far more numerous than the fishermen themselves. But yet another problem is that we have as a nation got out of the way of eating fish in large quantities. We now prefer meat. Would we really go back if the fish were being landed here?
    I think we might, actually.

    There's a much greater diversity of fish on restaurants menus now than i remember when I was growing up, and cooked in more interesting and flavoursome ways.
    You mean filet-o-fish with or without tartare sauce?
    Yuk.
    Brexiter advocating increased consumption of fish sneers at what must be huge element of fish consumption, albeit by proles.

    Shocked, I tell you.
    Not one of your better trolling efforts.
    Yet your comment was very telling. In theory advocating something but disliking it in practice.
    ' In New Zealand and the United Kingdom Filet-O-Fish contains hoki instead of Alaska pollock. '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filet-O-Fish

    As Filet-O-Fish seem to contain fish imported from the opposite side of the planet then their consumption does nothing to help the UK fishing industry.

    So CR's reaction was, inadvertently or not, the correct one.
    Yes it comes from Asia Pacific but look at it as a gateway fish. The more people try it the more they are likely to then branch out and want the sort of fish that @Casino_Royale would be happy to be seen eating.
    People might switch from fishfingers to fish and chips but I doubt there's much of a movement from FOFs to Dover Sole.
    When you're younger you by necessity and environment go cheap and cheerful, when you get older then you can move up the range. If you get a taste for fish when you're young you might easily retain that as you get old.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    CPI down to 2.7% - good news

    Looks as if earnings are catching up inflation

    No communiques from your contacts among the fisher folk of the NE Big G? Now is the time for you to come into your own.
    The Moray MP is angry as are other colleagues but it is only a delay of 18 months before getting back control of our coastal waters.

    I suspect it is a warning shot to the Government that further concessions on fishing to the EU will not be acceptable.

    Interesting that JRM has denied this morning that he will be joining a fish throwing demonstration on the Thames outside the HOC tomorrow and says that he is concentrating on the post transition period, not the transistion itself.

    Also IDS has just said the same so looks as if TM is not going to have much of an immediate problem
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,840
    edited March 20
    God I love fish.

    Salmon is the best, then sea bass, then cod, then seared tuna.

    As a good Muslim boy when eating out in restaurants and hotels fish is the only option for me, which is great.

    If you're unsure of salmon, buy this, it is on offer until Sunday.

    https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/271519842
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,997


    Mortimer said:

    O/T, but sort of related to the previous thread discussion. I miss my favourite chippy - on Theobolds Rd - they used to use beef dripping to cook the chips. Mmmm

    Do you mean Fryer’s Delight? Has that gone?
    Think that's the one. Run by a lovely Italian family.

    Hope it's still there; but I now live about 100 miles away.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.


    He's channelling his inner Maggie by echoing her with his claim that he "can do business" with Putin.

    Or.

    He will do almost anything to avoid saying that Russia is responsible. The OPCW is the right body to test the samples. They are neutral, expert and respected. They are also in the country now to do their work. Why Corbyn won't accept their findings is a mystery. In asking that Russia be given a sample he is simply parroting one of Russia's lines.

    I do seriously worry about having him in charge should such an incident happen again. Could he be trusted with the intelligence? Could he be trusted to authorise all necessary investigative and protective measures?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    TOPPING said:

    People might switch from fishfingers to fish and chips but I doubt there's much of a movement from FOFs to Dover Sole.

    When you're younger you have cheap and cheerful, when you get older then you can move up the range. If you get a taste for fish when you're young you might easily retain that as you get old.
    Perhaps we should give children bloater paste sandwiches in schools?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    May well be should be deleted and is inserted
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    Is he actually 'dumb', or does he just know what *his* audience will believe?

    (I don't think you or I are particularly his audience).
    I'd vote for him regardless so I'm not sure if that makes me his audience for this or not, I am quite interested in foreign affairs so maybe, if he is going for an audience I guess I would possibly be in it, although I'm sceptical that is what he is doing.

    My guess/take if your interested is no harm in giving them a sample and seeing what they say, if they have a completely ridiculous story then they look more guilty, if they sort of take a who knows approach they either look more guilty or at worse the situation remains. In the very unlikely event it wasn't them maybe they can offer up a plausible defence.

    If it was them, which I think it was then I can't see them having a very viable counter story (assuming what I have read is true) then at best for them they can bluff and it looks similar to how it does now. Anything less than that and they could make themselves look more guilty in an attempt to evade or lie.

    I can understand the politics of not wanting to do it in terms of how it looks but unless we are under a timeframe constraint that this would break I can't see the harm. The one other point I have seen against giving them a sample is this could help them spin a story for others to follow, but quite frankly they are already denying responsibility and people are already making up stories. If anything not giving them a sample could be part of a conspiracy theory about it as giving them a sample and them creating their own narrative.

    This doesn't make me more or less likely to vote Labour.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    tlg86 said:

    CPI down to 2.7% - good news

    Looks as if earnings are catching up inflation

    Didn't Mark Carney say inflation was going to go up this year?
    Not sure to be honest
  • So when will Corbyn be awarded the Order of Lenin, assuming he's not already been awarded it.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:


    The onshore jobs that used to come with the fish are actually far more numerous than the fishermen themselves. But yet another problem is that we have as a nation got out of the way of eating fish in large quantities. We now prefer meat. Would we really go back if the fish were being landed here?

    I think we might, actually.

    There's a much greater diversity of fish on restaurants menus now than i remember when I was growing up, and cooked in more interesting and flavoursome ways.
    You mean filet-o-fish with or without tartare sauce?
    Yuk.
    Brexiter advocating increased consumption of fish sneers at what must be huge element of fish consumption, albeit by proles.

    Shocked, I tell you.
    Not one of your better trolling efforts.
    Yet your comment was very telling. In theory advocating something but disliking it in practice.
    ' In New Zealand and the United Kingdom Filet-O-Fish contains hoki instead of Alaska pollock. '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filet-O-Fish

    As Filet-O-Fish seem to contain fish imported from the opposite side of the planet then their consumption does nothing to help the UK fishing industry.

    So CR's reaction was, inadvertently or not, the correct one.
    Yes it comes from Asia Pacific but look at it as a gateway fish. The more people try it the more they are likely to then branch out and want the sort of fish that @Casino_Royale would be happy to be seen eating.
    People might switch from fishfingers to fish and chips but I doubt there's much of a movement from FOFs to Dover Sole.
    When you're younger you by necessity and environment go cheap and cheerful, when you get older then you can move up the range. If you get a taste for fish when you're young you might easily retain that as you get old.
    Kids are more likely to eat Fishfinger Happy Meals than FOFs.

    FHMs also have the advantage of tasty reasonably like fish.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    Is he actually 'dumb', or does he just know what *his* audience will believe?

    (I don't think you or I are particularly his audience).
    I personally don't see how his "give Russia a sample to test" idea can be anything other than a way of giving Russia cover for their BS. Russia are quite literally the country you would least trust to conduct an honest chemical test. Corbyn is either trying to let the Russians off the hook, or very stupid.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    Cyclefree said:

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.


    He's channelling his inner Maggie by echoing her with his claim that he "can do business" with Putin.

    Or.

    He will do almost anything to avoid saying that Russia is responsible. The OPCW is the right body to test the samples. They are neutral, expert and respected. They are also in the country now to do their work. Why Corbyn won't accept their findings is a mystery. In asking that Russia be given a sample he is simply parroting one of Russia's lines.

    I do seriously worry about having him in charge should such an incident happen again. Could he be trusted with the intelligence? Could he be trusted to authorise all necessary investigative and protective measures?
    QTWTAIN?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Cyclefree said:

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.


    He's channelling his inner Maggie by echoing her with his claim that he "can do business" with Putin.

    Or.

    He will do almost anything to avoid saying that Russia is responsible. The OPCW is the right body to test the samples. They are neutral, expert and respected. They are also in the country now to do their work. Why Corbyn won't accept their findings is a mystery.

    (Snip)
    There is an issue here. I don't think this will happen, but what if the OPCW disagree with the government's findings, or are more equivocal? There might be dangers in that case for the government.

    That wouldn't make Corbyn's desire to give samples to the Russians sensible, but it would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    glw said:

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    Is he actually 'dumb', or does he just know what *his* audience will believe?

    (I don't think you or I are particularly his audience).
    I personally don't see how his "give Russia a sample to test" idea can be anything other than a way of giving Russia cover for their BS. Russia are quite literally the country you would least trust to conduct an honest chemical test. Corbyn is either trying to let the Russians off the hook, or very stupid.
    We saw on here there way some posters really wanted to believe the Russians were not responsible. Corbyn might just be playing to that audience.

    I say this as someone who thought he was an idiot before last year's general election, but tempered that view with they way he'd survived the various internal party plots against him. There comes a time to start thinking that he might be a clever man who just likes to look dumb to his opponents ...

    Or p'haps not, and he's just dumb and lucky in his opponents. :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    edited March 20
    Cyclefree said:

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.


    He's channelling his inner Maggie by echoing her with his claim that he "can do business" with Putin.

    Or.

    He will do almost anything to avoid saying that Russia is responsible. The OPCW is the right body to test the samples. They are neutral, expert and respected. They are also in the country now to do their work. Why Corbyn won't accept their findings is a mystery. In asking that Russia be given a sample he is simply parroting one of Russia's lines.

    I do seriously worry about having him in charge should such an incident happen again. Could he be trusted with the intelligence? Could he be trusted to authorise all necessary investigative and protective measures?
    If, during the reign of Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn, Europe was held to ransom by Russia (as it closed the gas taps before the next Beast from the East was about to hit), you can be sure that Corbyn would be advising Europe to give Russia whatever it wanted. I mean - Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland.... what do they really matter? Just do business with the bear...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    edited March 20

    Wow, someone has a lower opinion of David Davis than me, didn't think that was possible.

    I stick to my assertion that David Davis is as useful as a marzipan dildo.
    I like marzipan...

    (Not sure I'd eat one in public, though.)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,647
    Mortimer said:


    Mortimer said:

    O/T, but sort of related to the previous thread discussion. I miss my favourite chippy - on Theobolds Rd - they used to use beef dripping to cook the chips. Mmmm

    Do you mean Fryer’s Delight? Has that gone?
    Think that's the one. Run by a lovely Italian family.

    Hope it's still there; but I now live about 100 miles away.
    Still there I think, at least Google says so.
    Of course beef dripping is the only fit choice for fish frying. Hopefully it will have a general resurgence at some stage.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,840
    edited March 20
    Nigelb said:
    Will Sarkozy collaborate with the police?

    I feel sorry for Gaddafi, he gave money to Sarkozy and a few years later Sarkozy bombed his country leading to Gaddafi's death.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,594
    There's been a spate of bombings in Austin, Texas.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    Cyclefree said:

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.


    He's channelling his inner Maggie by echoing her with his claim that he "can do business" with Putin.

    Or.

    He will do almost anything to avoid saying that Russia is responsible. The OPCW is the right body to test the samples. They are neutral, expert and respected. They are also in the country now to do their work. Why Corbyn won't accept their findings is a mystery.

    (Snip)
    There is an issue here. I don't think this will happen, but what if the OPCW disagree with the government's findings, or are more equivocal? There might be dangers in that case for the government.

    That wouldn't make Corbyn's desire to give samples to the Russians sensible, but it would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
    If the sample is something new, the first thing the OPCW should do is undertake a full inspection of all Russian facilities, to confirm it was not made there and they hold no stocks of anything similar. The Russian reaction to that would be instructive.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Alistair said:

    There's been a spate of bombings in Austin, Texas.

    Two people dead so far. :(
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43453237

    Incidentally, my son's school here in Cambridgeshire was one of the ones that got a bomb threat yesterday. What sort of sick idiot does that?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217

    Nigelb said:
    Will Sarkozy collaborate with the police?

    I feel sorry for Gaddafi, he gave money to Sarkozy and a few years later Sarkozy bombed his country leading to Gaddafi's death.
    It's not as though he can ask for it back...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    Cyclefree said:

    glw said:


    He's channelling his inner Maggie by echoing her with his claim that he "can do business" with Putin.

    Or.

    He will do almost anything to avoid saying that Russia is responsible. The OPCW is the right body to test the samples. They are neutral, expert and respected. They are also in the country now to do their work. Why Corbyn won't accept their findings is a mystery.

    (Snip)
    There is an issue here. I don't think this will happen, but what if the OPCW disagree with the government's findings, or are more equivocal? There might be dangers in that case for the government.

    That wouldn't make Corbyn's desire to give samples to the Russians sensible, but it would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW. He gives the impression that he wants to do everything he can to help Russia defend itself. He gives the impression that he has made up his mind - that his opinion comes first and facts second. Hence the disingenuousness of his claim that he wants the investigation to happen first and then decisions to be made because his spokesman has already said that the intelligence services cannot be trusted so any facts they come out with can be ignored and the only alternative posited is to ask the possible defendant to mark their own homework.

    It is very telling that the scepticism which Corbyn shows towards what the British government and the British intelligence services say is not extended to what the Russian government says. He is sceptical (maybe rightly) about the former but seems to believe the latter wholeheartedly. That is the problem with his approach. His scepticism is coloured by his political views. His default position is that the British authorities must be lying. When British citizens are being attacked and others may have inadvertently suffered, those in charge need to be able to trust the specialist services to investigate and take the necessary preventative actions. And, in their turn, those authorities need to trust those at the top of government to support them, to know that they have their back.

    With Corbyn I don't think the trust is there - and that has very serious implications for the rest of us who depend on government and the specialist services for our safety and security.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 246
    glw said:

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    Is he actually 'dumb', or does he just know what *his* audience will believe?

    (I don't think you or I are particularly his audience).
    I personally don't see how his "give Russia a sample to test" idea can be anything other than a way of giving Russia cover for their BS. Russia are quite literally the country you would least trust to conduct an honest chemical test. Corbyn is either trying to let the Russians off the hook, or very stupid.
    The more worrying possibility to me here is the reason that Russia wants a sample is to analyse it to find out what went wrong and why it failed so that their next operation won't make the same mistake
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    David Duguid MP for Banff and Buchan expresses disappointment but accepts that the end state returns the coastal waters to the UK.

    Beth Rigby on Sky saying JRM is going to throw fish on the Thames tomorrow notwithstanding he said on an earlier radio programme that he would not and Boulton also referring to fish throwing tomorrow. Need to get their facts right
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    @Cyclefree

    Fair enough. I think I agree with you. A good post.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,795

    Nigelb said:
    Will Sarkozy collaborate with the police?

    I feel sorry for Gaddafi, he gave money to Sarkozy and a few years later Sarkozy bombed his country leading to Gaddafi's death.
    Perhaps Sarko can make a contribution as a goodwill gesture.

    'Gaddafi's son Saif 'to run for Libyan president' in 2018 elections '

    https://tinyurl.com/yasj4o3v
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933
    edited March 20
    And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.
    ...........................................

    Sorry do you have a source for that?

    As I mentioned above giving the Russians a sample and forcing them to come up with a story doesn't seem to be much of a loss.

    People seem to be confusing giving the Russians a sample with thinking the Russians are definitely innocent and thinking the explanation they will give after they conduct their own investigation will be the undeniable truth.

    I can understand this from a propaganda angle but other than thinking Corbyn is a bad guy and automatically a friend of Russia is there some actual proof of this for those of us less interested in propaganda and who don't think Corbyn is a bad guy?

    Edit: To clarify proof beyond look at this picture of Corbyn with man x, Corbyn once worked with man y, man z who Corbyn works with once said this about Russia
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    glw said:

    Has Corbyn explained what he expects to get from Russia if they test a sample?

    Has anyone asked Corbyn why he would trust the results from a country that only a few years ago engaged in massive FSB-led drug test cheating at the Sochi Winter Olympics?

    Corbyn may well be the dumbest person to ever lead a UK political party, UKIP included.

    Is he actually 'dumb', or does he just know what *his* audience will believe?

    (I don't think you or I are particularly his audience).
    I'd vote for him regardless
    Therein lies the problem.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316
    Cyclefree said:

    It is very telling that the scepticism which Corbyn shows towards what the British government and the British intelligence services say is not extended to what the Russian government says. He is sceptical (maybe rightly) about the former but seems to believe the latter wholeheartedly. That is the problem with his approach. His scepticism is coloured by his political views. His default position is that the British authorities must be lying. When British citizens are being attacked and others may have inadvertently suffered, those in charge need to be able to trust the specialist services to investigate and take the necessary preventative actions. And, in their turn, those authorities need to trust those at the top of government to support them, to know that they have their back.

    With Corbyn I don't think the trust is there - and that has very serious implications for the rest of us who depend on government and the specialist services for our safety and security.

    Their politics differ but even so Corbyn and Trump are peas in a pod.

    Trump rants about FBI and CIA witch-hunts, and believes Putin's word without question. Corbyn doesn't trust UK security and intelligence services, but is bending over backwards to give the Russians what they want.

    God help us if we make the same mistake as the Americans.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,503
    Good news about inflation.

    Everything seems very encouraging right now.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    52% probability of Brexit going ahead by 29 March next year is still undervalued.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    F1: hmm. Spreadex, whilst not having a season points market, does have a race market of a comparable variety. https://www.spreadex.com/sports/en-GB/spread-betting/Motor-Racing/Australian-Grand-Prix/Australian-Grand-Prix/p758651

    Betfair's exchange markets are all up too, but Ladbrokes is just the winner's, for now.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    We could always put the sample in a package marked "Returned to Sender".
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    They could do a post mortem (sic) on their operation and understand how to improve the delivery method.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,865
    Is there a market on the UK and EU having a Regional Trade Agreement in force by 1 January 2021.

    Less than 50% chance of that I think: http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicSearchByMemberResult.aspx?MemberCode=918&lang=1&redirect=1
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594
    Still looks value at just under evens. Extending the A50 timeline (as opposed to a transition period) requires a very high bar.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    edited March 20
    FF43 said:

    Is there a market on the UK and EU having a Regional Trade Agreement in force by 1 January 2021.

    Less than 50% chance of that I think: http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicSearchByMemberResult.aspx?MemberCode=918&lang=1&redirect=1

    A rough and ready metric of the number of regional trade agreements registered with the WTO:

    EU - 39
    USA - 13

    Yet we were told the EU is terrible at concluding trade deals...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212

    And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.
    ...........................................



    As I mentioned above giving the Russians a sample and forcing them to come up with a story doesn't seem to be much of a loss.

    It could be a loss because it might put our intelligence at risk. It is quite possible that the UK has intelligence sources within Russia which are one of the reasons why the British government has come out with the statements it has. You don't put your sources at risk by sharing information which might identify them with people who you have every reason to believe may well harm them.

    There is a stunning naivety about Corbyn and those who are straining every sinew not to accept that the primary duty of any British government, any British PM, no matter what their party, is to protect the safety of British citizens. Corbyn gives the impression that he really does not, in his bones, understand this. He thinks that if only he can be nice to the Russians and talk to them and share a nice cup of tea with them they will be nice to us and leave us alone. He seems to think that there can be no possible conflict between British and Russian interests. Well, it is easy to have a quiet life by appeasing a bully and many voters like that. So his current stance may not harm him and may well be popular.

    Whether it is morally defensible or strategically wise is another matter. But that does not appear to bother Corbyn or his supporters. And some of his closest advisors are not just aiming for a quiet life. They seem to actively support Putin and what he does - people like Milne, for instance.

    You said yesterday that you wanted Britain to have a foreign policy which stood up for the weak and oppressed. Siding with Russia - if that is what Corbyn's foreign policy would be - is not siding with the weak and oppressed. It is siding with a country which supports Assad, a man who uses chemical weapons on his own people, on children, a country which commits war crimes against the Chechens, which attacks an independent country, Ukraine, a country which supported the Serbs when they were attacking and committing genocide against Bosnian Muslims. It is siding with the bully and the oppressor not his victims. No amount of raising LGBT rights in a nice chat can wipe out that reality.


  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    And they are here to do that assessment. So why then is he not waiting for that independent assessment?

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,334
    Corbyn thinks that his own country is a malevolent actor in the world. Why wouldn’t he want such an awful place to be found guilty of lying by a state that has supported the anti-imperialist struggle across the globe?

    His view on giving a sample to Russia makes perfect sense with these premises.

    Well done Labour moderates. Those of you still prepared to vote for the party (let alone be members) are all complicit in this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    F1: hmm. Spreadex, whilst not having a season points market, does have a race market of a comparable variety. https://www.spreadex.com/sports/en-GB/spread-betting/Motor-Racing/Australian-Grand-Prix/Australian-Grand-Prix/p758651

    Betfair's exchange markets are all up too, but Ladbrokes is just the winner's, for now.

    That's an interesting Spreadex market, and good to see them doing it. Not for me though, too much risk for a single race.

    I'm going to get a spreadsheet together of the form over the past couple of seasons in qualifying and race performance, before Saturday morning. One stat that stands out is that Lewis Hamilton scored points in every race last year.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out.

    I don't think there's much to be gained from giving the Russians a sample. I don't think there's much to be lost from giving the Russians a sample either, it at least removes the weak defence that they weren't offered an opportunity to test it.

    I wouldn't trust what they said unless there was other evidence to support it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    And they are here to do that assessment. So why then is he not waiting for that independent assessment?

    Ah so you're accusing him of being too certain it was the Russians now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out...
    Given that is being done anyway, Corbyn is hardly pointing that out.

    His only substantive comment was to say it's necessary to let Russia have one too. Which is either silly, or malign.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,148
    Sandpit said:

    Still looks value at just under evens. Extending the A50 timeline (as opposed to a transition period) requires a very high bar.

    Well quite. This has been my biggest bet of 2018. I'm not thinking of cashing out at current prices or anything like.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    edited March 20
    Mr. Sandpit, aye, though that was a function of reliability as much as pace. None of the top three teams had a pointless finish.

    Edited extra bit: to clarify, they always either scored points or had a DNF/DNS.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 210
    Will the scales now drop from the eyes of at least some of the Corby supporters? Will some of the Labour members and voters who thought that Corbyn and momentum can be managed and constrained in government realise the dangers and do something?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933
    You have cle
    Cyclefree said:


    It could be a loss because it might put our intelligence at risk. It is quite possible that the UK has intelligence sources within Russia which are one of the reasons why the British government has come out with the statements it has.

    It would be a sample of the substance, like we gave the OPCW not our whole investigation complete with sources.


    ___________________
    There is a stunning naivety about Corbyn and those who are straining every sinew not to accept that the primary duty of any British government, any British PM, no matter what their party, is to protect the safety of British citizens. Corbyn gives the impression that he really does not, in his bones, understand this. He thinks that if only he can be nice to the Russians and talk to them and share a nice cup of tea with them they will be nice to us and leave us alone. He seems to think that there can be no possible conflict between British and Russian interests. Well, it is easy to have a quiet life by appeasing a bully and many voters like that. So his current stance may not harm him and may well be popular.
    _________________

    This seems to somewhat conflate with the reality of him proposing tougher sanctions, protecting British citizens does not equal being right wing.

    --------------
    Whether it is morally defensible or strategically wise is another matter. But that does not appear to bother Corbyn or his supporters.
    --------------

    And whether it is accurate does not seem to bother his opponents.

    -----------------------------------
    You said yesterday that you wanted Britain to have a foreign policy which stood up for the weak and oppressed. Siding with Russia - if that is what Corbyn's foreign policy would be - is not siding with the weak and oppressed. It is siding with a country which supports Assad, a man who uses chemical weapons on his own people, on children, a country which commits war crimes against the Chechens, which attacks an independent country, Ukraine, a country which supported the Serbs when they were attacking and committing genocide against Bosnian Muslims. It is siding with the bully and the oppressor not his victims. No amount of raising LGBT rights in a nice chat can wipe out that reality.
    -------------------------------------

    Yes but 'siding with Russia' is not what Corbyn's foreign policy would be... the tougher sanctions he proposed would seem a silly way to promote his side with Russia strategy. If anything the opposite move would be appropriate if he wanted to side with Russia.

    He could even encourage MPs to give tennis lessons and have dinner with some of rich Russian friends who could donate to the party in exchange. After all given our pro Russia policy and Putin's habit of enriching his friends they'd be lining up...

    Right?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    One point which has perhaps not been sufficiently discussed is the suggestion that Russia has been using this method for undetected assassinations for some time (hence the planned exhumations), and that something went wrong this time around.

    Until that is eliminated as a possibility, sharing any data with Russia is not exactly sensible.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out.

    I don't think there's much to be gained from giving the Russians a sample. I don't think there's much to be lost from giving the Russians a sample either, it at least removes the weak defence that they weren't offered an opportunity to test it.

    I wouldn't trust what they said unless there was other evidence to support it.
    This is the part that is slightly confusing to me, unless you believe giving the Russians a sample is equivalent to believing everything they say then there really isn't much to lose from it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,067

    Will the scales now drop from the eyes of at least some of the Corby supporters? Will some of the Labour members and voters who thought that Corbyn and momentum can be managed and constrained in government realise the dangers and do something?

    Given the number who think not just the Kremlin background but also the Lenin cap were photoshopped I’d say “no”

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-russian-corbyn-photoshop/

    People will be saying he has a Stalin admirer as a close aide next....
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out...
    Given that is being done anyway, Corbyn is hardly pointing that out.

    His only substantive comment was to say it's necessary to let Russia have one too. Which is either silly, or malign.
    He's pointed out we should wait for the investigation being done by the OPCW - whilst the Tories have already blamed Russia before the investigation is complete.
    I think it's reasonable to defend the process of having a neutral investigator.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out.

    I don't think there's much to be gained from giving the Russians a sample. I don't think there's much to be lost from giving the Russians a sample either, it at least removes the weak defence that they weren't offered an opportunity to test it.

    I wouldn't trust what they said unless there was other evidence to support it.
    This is the part that is slightly confusing to me, unless you believe giving the Russians a sample is equivalent to believing everything they say then there really isn't much to lose from it.
    I mean maybe there is something to lose from it. I don't know anything about chemical weapons. But I haven't read anything that says why it might be a problem.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out.

    I don't think there's much to be gained from giving the Russians a sample. I don't think there's much to be lost from giving the Russians a sample either, it at least removes the weak defence that they weren't offered an opportunity to test it.

    I wouldn't trust what they said unless there was other evidence to support it.
    This is the part that is slightly confusing to me, unless you believe giving the Russians a sample is equivalent to believing everything they say then there really isn't much to lose from it.
    Corbyn is still waiting for the Russians to confirm if Solzhenitsyn's books are fake news or not.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,067
    rkrkrk said:

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out...
    Given that is being done anyway, Corbyn is hardly pointing that out.

    His only substantive comment was to say it's necessary to let Russia have one too. Which is either silly, or malign.
    He's pointed out we should wait for the investigation being done by the OPCW - whilst the Tories have already blamed Russia before the investigation is complete.
    I think it's reasonable to defend the process of having a neutral investigator.
    Which other countries have assassinated exiles using highly toxic agents at risk to others in the last couple of decades in the U.K.?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    One point which has perhaps not been sufficiently discussed is the suggestion that Russia has been using this method for undetected assassinations for some time (hence the planned exhumations), and that something went wrong this time around.

    Until that is eliminated as a possibility, sharing any data with Russia is not exactly sensible.
    I actually doubt that's the case; they wouldn't have given an entire batch over, and any decay or pollution of the sample that may have caused a failure might have happened after the attack. I'm guessing they wouldn't learn much. It's much more likely to have been a failure in delivery mechanism, rather than a problem with the agent itself.

    It would be interesting to know if a single death by this agent would be noticed by the authorities, or does it look like a 'normal' death (e.g. heart attack)?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217
    Bit of a straw man argument.

    Most commentary I've seen acknowledges that it's impossible to tease out what effects their work did or didn't have electorally.

    The furore is about the abuse of personal data and possible breach of election law in several countries. Which ought to be rather easier to prove one way or another.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,067
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    The main thing is that a neutral observer does testing.
    Corbyn is absolutely right to point that out.

    I don't think there's much to be gained from giving the Russians a sample. I don't think there's much to be lost from giving the Russians a sample either, it at least removes the weak defence that they weren't offered an opportunity to test it.

    I wouldn't trust what they said unless there was other evidence to support it.
    This is the part that is slightly confusing to me, unless you believe giving the Russians a sample is equivalent to believing everything they say then there really isn't much to lose from it.
    I mean maybe there is something to lose from it. I don't know anything about chemical weapons. But I haven't read anything that says why it might be a problem.
    Do you honestly expect an objective analysis from the Russians? All they’d do is give their useful idiots ammunition....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    Will the scales now drop from the eyes of at least some of the Corby supporters? Will some of the Labour members and voters who thought that Corbyn and momentum can be managed and constrained in government realise the dangers and do something?

    Given the number who think not just the Kremlin background but also the Lenin cap were photoshopped I’d say “no”

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-russian-corbyn-photoshop/

    People will be saying he has a Stalin admirer as a close aide next....
    Report today of doubts being expressed by some of his MP's how they could fight a GE alongside him.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933
    edited March 20

    Will the scales now drop from the eyes of at least some of the Corby supporters? Will some of the Labour members and voters who thought that Corbyn and momentum can be managed and constrained in government realise the dangers and do something?

    Given the number who think not just the Kremlin background but also the Lenin cap were photoshopped I’d say “no”

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-russian-corbyn-photoshop/

    People will be saying he has a Stalin admirer as a close aide next....
    Without wanting to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist...

    I'm going to have to take issue with that on the basis that Corbyn isn't almost as tall as the Kremlin... or that red....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,217

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    One point which has perhaps not been sufficiently discussed is the suggestion that Russia has been using this method for undetected assassinations for some time (hence the planned exhumations), and that something went wrong this time around.

    Until that is eliminated as a possibility, sharing any data with Russia is not exactly sensible.
    I actually doubt that's the case; they wouldn't have given an entire batch over, and any decay or pollution of the sample that may have caused a failure might have happened after the attack. I'm guessing they wouldn't learn much. It's much more likely to have been a failure in delivery mechanism, rather than a problem with the agent itself.

    It would be interesting to know if a single death by this agent would be noticed by the authorities, or does it look like a 'normal' death (e.g. heart attack)?
    Impossible to say one way or the other. No doubt if there have been other homicides we'll learn of it at some point.
    There is an extent to which you have to take the governments actions on trust - at least for a while until more information comes out.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    One point which has perhaps not been sufficiently discussed is the suggestion that Russia has been using this method for undetected assassinations for some time (hence the planned exhumations), and that something went wrong this time around.

    Until that is eliminated as a possibility, sharing any data with Russia is not exactly sensible.
    That would be quite amusing. Okay, not for the deceased, but everyone's trying to come up with theories for "why now?" - and perhaps the Russians are playing along with that - but it would be interesting if they'd been doing this for some time.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,316

    Do you honestly expect an objective analysis from the Russians? All they’d do is give their useful idiots ammunition....

    Two things the Russians are likely to want to do. 1. Muddy the waters. 2. Drag the proccess out as long as possible. What Corbyn proposes enables those ovjectives. The OPCW's analysis should be more than good enough for everyone.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Mr. NorthWales, I'm sure there's murmuring. But unless they plan on doing something they might as well just roll over and wait either to be defeated again, or to rejoice in the fact they helped the likes of Corbyn become PM.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,212
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    And they are here to do that assessment. So why then is he not waiting for that independent assessment?

    Ah so you're accusing him of being too certain it was the Russians now?
    In response to you and the Jezziah, I think he is utterly naive (at best) - about Russia - and unserious about what is a British Prime Minister's primary duty: keeping the country and its citizens safe.

    At worst he exhibits that trait of too many on the Left so admirably described by Albert Camus:

    "Toute idee fausse finit dans le sang mais il s'agit toujours du sang des autres. C'est ce qui explique que certain de nos philosophes se sentent a l'aise pour dire n'importe quoi."

    Or "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood . That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."

    I am all in favour of using Britain's financial expertise to put real pressure on Putin and his oligarch cronies. I do not like the way we are allowing ourselves to be used by them to launder, hide and generally salt away their ill-gotten gains. I also think the Tories were utterly foolish to take money from some of those cronies. They should stop doing so.

    Being sceptical of Corbyn does not make me a Tory supporter. Very far from it.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    What is gained from giving the Russians a sample? What do you expect them to do with it and say afterwards? Do you trust them?
    One point which has perhaps not been sufficiently discussed is the suggestion that Russia has been using this method for undetected assassinations for some time (hence the planned exhumations), and that something went wrong this time around.

    Until that is eliminated as a possibility, sharing any data with Russia is not exactly sensible.
    Now if the data could somehow help Russia improve the weapon that would be a good reason not to.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,795
    edited March 20
    Nigelb said:

    Bit of a straw man argument.

    Most commentary I've seen acknowledges that it's impossible to tease out what effects their work did or didn't have electorally.

    The furore is about the abuse of personal data and possible breach of election law in several countries. Which ought to be rather easier to prove one way or another.
    Presumably the Wizard of Oz argument also applies to those who were willing to pay large amounts of money to CA and their ilk to help their (winning) campaigns.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 933
    glw said:

    Do you honestly expect an objective analysis from the Russians? All they’d do is give their useful idiots ammunition....

    Two things the Russians are likely to want to do. 1. Muddy the waters. 2. Drag the proccess out as long as possible. What Corbyn proposes enables those ovjectives. The OPCW's analysis should be more than good enough for everyone.

    Aren't they muddying the waters anyway?

    Given the OPCW will do their analysis in however long it takes them then the Russians going beyond that time and claiming they need more time will just make them look more guilty.

    @Cyclefree

    Fair enough, I think you can be unfairly sceptical at times but then you could accuse me of the exact opposite so I can't really complain!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,310
    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:



    If the OPCW disagree fine. The experts can come to a view as to what has happened and who is/may be responsible. They are the experts and are neutral. Russia is not a neutral observer.

    Ben Bradshaw wrote an article in the newspaper last week saying that Corbyn had long campaigned against chemical weapons, had been a supporter of the OPCW etc which is why he was in a great position to provide leadership. And yet when it comes to it he wants to bypass the OPCW.

    Bypassing?

    'But Mr Corbyn said people should wait for an independent assessment of the nerve agent from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons before they “shoot from the hip”.'
    And they are here to do that assessment. So why then is he not waiting for that independent assessment?

    Ah so you're accusing him of being too certain it was the Russians now?
    In response to you and the Jezziah, I think he is utterly naive (at best) - about Russia - and unserious about what is a British Prime Minister's primary duty: keeping the country and its citizens safe.

    At worst he exhibits that trait of too many on the Left so admirably described by Albert Camus:

    "Toute idee fausse finit dans le sang mais il s'agit toujours du sang des autres. C'est ce qui explique que certain de nos philosophes se sentent a l'aise pour dire n'importe quoi."

    Or "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood . That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."

    I am all in favour of using Britain's financial expertise to put real pressure on Putin and his oligarch cronies. I do not like the way we are allowing ourselves to be used by them to launder, hide and generally salt away their ill-gotten gains. I also think the Tories were utterly foolish to take money from some of those cronies. They should stop doing so.

    Being sceptical of Corbyn does not make me a Tory supporter. Very far from it.
    I completely agree with your penultimate paragraph.
    Corbyn should be pushing harder on this and instead he seems to have backed off.

    I didn't really want to get into this discussion - but I took exception to your idea he was bypassing the OPCW.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,594

    Sandpit said:

    Still looks value at just under evens. Extending the A50 timeline (as opposed to a transition period) requires a very high bar.

    Well quite. This has been my biggest bet of 2018. I'm not thinking of cashing out at current prices or anything like.
    You've been very good at highlighting the value of this bet, I've been following it for a few months now and topping up occasionally. Thanks for the tip.
This discussion has been closed.