Howdy, Stranger!

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

A LAB majority bet is starting to look value – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 30 in General
imageA LAB majority bet is starting to look value – politicalbetting.com

Over the last year also I have been very cynical about the betting prices on a LAB majority. The scale of what Starmer faces is massive given that he starts on 202 seats and needs 326 for a majority.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,520
    What a mess.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Stopping to look value Shirley? I was tipping it at 3/1, it's now closing in on evens.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    What a mess.

    I agree. She should have combed her hair before that picture was taken.
  • What a mess.

    I agree. She should have combed her hair before that picture was taken.
    Ooh, catty! :)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,091

    What a mess.

    I agree. She should have combed her hair before that picture was taken.
    Thatcher cosplay but modified by continuity Johnson?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.
  • Polls matter because Kantar's shows the Tories doing well
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,361
    SKS fans please explain
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    Carnyx said:

    What a mess.

    I agree. She should have combed her hair before that picture was taken.
    Thatcher cosplay but modified by continuity Johnson?
    That would explain it
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    What a mess.

    I agree. She should have combed her hair before that picture was taken.
    Ooh, catty! :)
    Meowww!!! 🐱
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410
    I've been saying for a long time, I think it's 40/40/20 for Lab/NOM/Con. I'm not going yo mark that to market every time there's a new poll or Truss says something stupid, but I think risks are skewed towards the first number going up and the third number going down.
  • Yes Mike, I was thinking earlier just how much this felt like the run up to Tony Blair's landslide win, but.....there is one big difference. Blair was actually popular himself, and voters were enthusiastic about New Labour. Starmer doesn't have the same appeal, and there is no Project. This time Labour's poll leads are based on dislike of the Government, and contempt for the Tories.

    Goodness knows what kind of leads we will see if people ever take to Starmer, or begin to think 'You know something, maybe Socialism isn't s so bad after all.'
  • Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I actually find Starmer a deal less irritating than I found Blair. My problem is with the rest of the loons in the Labour Party, though the Tories have their own versions
  • What a mess.

    I agree. She should have combed her hair before that picture was taken.
    Terrible split ends!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,361
    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited September 29

    Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I actually find Starmer a deal less irritating than I found Blair. My problem is with the rest of the loons in the Labour Party, though the Tories have their own versions
    The difference is that for the moment the loons in the Tory party are in charge.

    Labour's are on the fringes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225

    Yes Mike, I was thinking earlier just how much this felt like the run up to Tony Blair's landslide win, but.....there is one big difference. Blair was actually popular himself, and voters were enthusiastic about New Labour. Starmer doesn't have the same appeal, and there is no Project. This time Labour's poll leads are based on dislike of the Government, and contempt for the Tories.

    Goodness knows what kind of leads we will see if people ever take to Starmer, or begin to think 'You know something, maybe Socialism isn't s so bad after all.'

    Former Tory MPs are voting Labour
  • :innocent:


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    (FPT)
    Leon said:

    More evidence that America did it

    The Times came out with the bald assertion. Russia did it. Now? A quiet but definite change of mind, and an article subtly edited

    "Update: these claims & quotes (Russia "probably premeditated and planned for" sabotage) have been deleted from the new version of The Times' story, which is a lot more cautious. Original below.

    https://thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-nord-stream-pipeline-with-underwater-drone-says-defence-source-wkkcgshzv"

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1575424459741270016?s=20&t=TEnmgg5hDYaoTV2GNhC9gA

    Verdict? Western intelligence agencies and therefore western governments are in little doubt. America did it. But no one will ever say it, and no one will ever "know"

    That's good evidence for nothing more than your ability to reason conspiratorially.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    I am a Bringer of Truth and Light
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    edited September 29
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    Best just to assume that Leon the epileptic canary is simply wrong, again.
  • I have never heard my financial advisers so scathing about any politicians as they were about Truss and Kwarteng this morning. The idea that anyone serious in the financial sector believes the government is not to blame for what has happened in the last week is for the fairies.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410
    Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I think it isn't so much Blair vs Starmer as 1997 voters vs 2022 voters. Back then voters were prepared to believe things could be better, now they are simply trying to prevent things getting worse. And they are much less trustful of politics and politicians. If Jesus came back to walk among us he would struggle to get a positive approval rating.
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I actually find Starmer a deal less irritating than I found Blair. My problem is with the rest of the loons in the Labour Party, though the Tories have their own versions
    The difference is that for the moment the loons in the Tory party are in charge.

    Labour's are on the fringes.
    ...for the time being. Besides I don't find the revolting Angela "Tory scum" Rayner a very appealing prospect to have in government
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    Grim briefing from @resfoundation:

    Last week's tax cuts plus increased cost of government borrowing after market turmoil means Kwarteng will have to find savings on the same scale as George Osborne's emergency 2010 austerity budget

    c £37-£47 billion

    https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1575481716017221632
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620
    IshmaelZ said:

    Stopping to look value Shirley? I was tipping it at 3/1, it's now closing in on evens.

    Agreed - I think getting close to cashing out time. I'm glad I followed you on that tip.
  • Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I think it isn't so much Blair vs Starmer as 1997 voters vs 2022 voters. Back then voters were prepared to believe things could be better, now they are simply trying to prevent things getting worse. And they are much less trustful of politics and politicians. If Jesus came back to walk among us he would struggle to get a positive approval rating.
    Yea, but the water into wine thing might get my vote TBH
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,410
    Oh God I've suddenly started to feel sorry for Liz Truss.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IanB2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    Best just to assume that Leon the epileptic canary is simply wrong, again.
    OK so what is the null hypothesis here, the equivalent of Of course it was a bat sold in the market, which Leon is perversely refusing to accept? Cos it looks like a completely batshit thing for anyone to have done.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    edited September 29
    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited September 29

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I actually find Starmer a deal less irritating than I found Blair. My problem is with the rest of the loons in the Labour Party, though the Tories have their own versions
    The difference is that for the moment the loons in the Tory party are in charge.

    Labour's are on the fringes.
    ...for the time being. Besides I don't find the revolting Angela "Tory scum" Rayner a very appealing prospect to have in government
    A fair point. But for the fact Liz Truss is less appealing to have in government than just about any sane person you care to name.

    She is more appealing than the likes of Trump, Putin or Orban. But that's like saying syphilis is preferable to AIDS.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Nigelb said:

    Liz Truss: “There are plenty of areas where the government can become more efficient.”
    Journalist: “Can you give me an example?”
    Liz Truss: “Well not at the moment …”

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1575442365195722753

    It could be more efficient in not making up totally fuckwitted policies on the hoof and then not knowing what to do next when they go wrong.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rkrkrk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stopping to look value Shirley? I was tipping it at 3/1, it's now closing in on evens.

    Agreed - I think getting close to cashing out time. I'm glad I followed you on that tip.
    Aw shucks, I feel very important now, that's the first time anyone has confessed to following a tip from me.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited September 29
    Hmm Maybe the only thing preventing FTSE 5000, 50 cents and Gilts @ 10% yield is the market thinking Captain Boring will be in charge before summer 25.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    edited September 29
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    I am a Bringer of Truth and Light
    It's going to end up being some idiotic Swedish trawler. One of Stuart's mates.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//images/entry-in-the-register-of-deaths-hm-the-queen.jpg
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    edited September 29
    Scott_xP said:

    Grim briefing from @resfoundation:

    Last week's tax cuts plus increased cost of government borrowing after market turmoil means Kwarteng will have to find savings on the same scale as George Osborne's emergency 2010 austerity budget

    c £37-£47 billion

    https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1575481716017221632

    There isn't £37bn of savings after 12 years of efficiency savings....

    Heck there probably isn't £37 of easy to achieve savings....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
  • Oh God I've suddenly started to feel sorry for Liz Truss.

    Just remember she's been a minister for the last 10 years.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Leon said:

    More evidence that America did it

    The Times came out with the bald assertion. Russia did it. Now? A quiet but definite change of mind, and an article subtly edited

    "Update: these claims & quotes (Russia "probably premeditated and planned for" sabotage) have been deleted from the new version of The Times' story, which is a lot more cautious. Original below.

    https://thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-nord-stream-pipeline-with-underwater-drone-says-defence-source-wkkcgshzv"

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1575424459741270016?s=20&t=TEnmgg5hDYaoTV2GNhC9gA

    Verdict? Western intelligence agencies and therefore western governments are in little doubt. America did it. But no one will ever say it, and no one will ever "know"

    That's good evidence for nothing more than your ability to reason conspiratorially.
    And yet, conspiracies do happen. Indeed conspiracies about conspiracies DO happen

    Lab Leak is the classic example


    Here is the defining paragraph of that seminal letter to the Lancet early in 2020, which managed to close down debate about Covid origins for over a year. Remember Facebook literally banned mere discussion of the theory it might have come from the lab. For a year

    "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"

    All total bollocks. Not only that, lying bollocks. At the end of the letter the authors declare "no conflict of interest", whereas the guy who organised the whole letter and wrote the first draft, Peter Daszak, DID THE VIROLOGICAL WORK AT WUHAN and was co-head of the lab

    I mean, what possible conflict of interest could HE have in dismissing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory"?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)


    So that is an actual - and globally significant - example of a conspiracy hidden by allegations of conspiracy. And in this case, curiously, they got it to work by attaching the ideas of trump and alt.right to the very idea of Lab Leak

    Which, if you look back, is insane

    I am 98% certain the virus came from the lab. I am much less certain who blew up the pipeline, I am tempted to guess America, but it is a wild guess. But people suddenly saying it is an "alt-right conspiracy theory" makes me more suspicious of Washington, not less



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Leon said:

    More evidence that America did it

    The Times came out with the bald assertion. Russia did it. Now? A quiet but definite change of mind, and an article subtly edited

    "Update: these claims & quotes (Russia "probably premeditated and planned for" sabotage) have been deleted from the new version of The Times' story, which is a lot more cautious. Original below.

    https://thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-nord-stream-pipeline-with-underwater-drone-says-defence-source-wkkcgshzv"

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1575424459741270016?s=20&t=TEnmgg5hDYaoTV2GNhC9gA

    Verdict? Western intelligence agencies and therefore western governments are in little doubt. America did it. But no one will ever say it, and no one will ever "know"

    That's good evidence for nothing more than your ability to reason conspiratorially.
    And yet, conspiracies do happen. Indeed conspiracies about conspiracies DO happen

    Lab Leak is the classic example


    Here is the defining paragraph of that seminal letter to the Lancet early in 2020, which managed to close down debate about Covid origins for over a year. Remember Facebook literally banned mere discussion of the theory it might have come from the lab. For a year

    "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"

    All total bollocks. Not only that, lying bollocks. At the end of the letter the authors declare "no conflict of interest", whereas the guy who organised the whole letter and wrote the first draft, Peter Daszak, DID THE VIROLOGICAL WORK AT WUHAN and was co-head of the lab

    I mean, what possible conflict of interest could HE have in dismissing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory"?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)


    So that is an actual - and globally significant - example of a conspiracy hidden by allegations of conspiracy. And in this case, curiously, they got it to work by attaching the ideas of trump and alt.right to the very idea of Lab Leak

    Which, if you look back, is insane

    I am 98% certain the virus came from the lab. I am much less certain who blew up the pipeline, I am tempted to guess America, but it is a wild guess. But people suddenly saying it is an "alt-right conspiracy theory" makes me more suspicious of Washington, not less



    Isn't it just a bit early to be hammered?
  • It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    So I win, because whoever I was arguing with contended it was 4.30 on the dot.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,222

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540

    Yes Mike, I was thinking earlier just how much this felt like the run up to Tony Blair's landslide win, but.....there is one big difference. Blair was actually popular himself, and voters were enthusiastic about New Labour. Starmer doesn't have the same appeal, and there is no Project. This time Labour's poll leads are based on dislike of the Government, and contempt for the Tories.

    Goodness knows what kind of leads we will see if people ever take to Starmer, or begin to think 'You know something, maybe Socialism isn't s so bad after all.'

    Starmer has started announcing policies now. I haven't thought much about whether the Great British Energy policy is any good, but the announcement of policies gives Labour a chance to define what a future under Labour will be like (obviously concentrating on all the ways it will be better).

    If they get a few of these right then there's a chance of them building support among some voters on the basis of, "if they do just that one thing my vote will have been worth it," or on a basis of, "this is so obvious and common sense, why hasn't it happened already," particularly given the public's willingness to overlook all the practical reasons why 'commonsense' things are rarely as simple as they sound.

    Course, they might mess it up and blow their own credibility with some comedy policies, but you can see how things could get worse for the Tories.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    How much will it cost us..?
  • .

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    #2 is the correct option to go for.

    And I'd rather lose the election, than win it by implementing Gordon Brown's tax rises.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,576

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I actually find Starmer a deal less irritating than I found Blair. My problem is with the rest of the loons in the Labour Party, though the Tories have their own versions
    The difference is that for the moment the loons in the Tory party are in charge.

    Labour's are on the fringes.
    ...for the time being. Besides I don't find the revolting Angela "Tory scum" Rayner a very appealing prospect to have in government
    All politics is relative. The current set up makes Angela look quite stellar by comparison. You get the impression of someone who who not deliberately trash the country or tell the lie direct, and who thinks ordinary people might matter quite a bit.

    In the current climate of UK politics that puts you up with Gandhi, Mandela and Obama.

    I have vote Tory in GEs for decades. Just at the moment, since Patersongate 'Tory scum', while inappropriate and mistaken, doesn't feel as out of place as it does when applied to Ken Clarke and the One Nation tradition.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    Anyway I wouldn't hang a dog on the evidence of a death certificate. George V's presumably did not say murder.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426

    Pulpstar said:

    How far ahead would 1995 era Blair be now ?

    Lab would be polling 50% I think.

    I think it isn't so much Blair vs Starmer as 1997 voters vs 2022 voters. Back then voters were prepared to believe things could be better, now they are simply trying to prevent things getting worse. And they are much less trustful of politics and politicians. If Jesus came back to walk among us he would struggle to get a positive approval rating.
    Given that the Jerusalem population prefered that Jesus rather than an imprisoned murderer be crucified, it is hard to claim that Jesus had a positive approval rating first time round.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Sterling is edging towards $1.10 today. The gilt market rates are edging up again but more in line with similar moves in Europe than on Wednesday morning. In short the "crisis" that filled the BBC news programs seems to have gone back to a gentle simmer and those headlines look more than a tad overdone.

    As I have said a few times 2008 this ain't.

    I think that the government made yet another mistake in not bringing forward the November budget. The government is suffering a serious lack of trust and credibility and they need to see the OBR stamp on things. The sooner that this can be done the better.

    If these headlines are forgotten in a few days and things remain relatively stable then the bet on a Labour majority looks unattractive. If, however, there are further squalls then it will become a no brainer. At which point, of course, the current price will no longer be available.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    Anyway I wouldn't hang a dog on the evidence of a death certificate. George V's presumably did not say murder.
    Nor did Edward V's (not that he got one).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    Best just to assume that Leon the epileptic canary is simply wrong, again.
    OK so what is the null hypothesis here, the equivalent of Of course it was a bat sold in the market, which Leon is perversely refusing to accept? Cos it looks like a completely batshit thing for anyone to have done.
    I like your repetition of bat/batshit there. Anyway... the null hypothesis is that Leon is a racist who regularly spouts Trumpian fantasies. We all know this. Why bother engaging with his wurblings?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    .

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    #2 is the correct option to go for.

    And I'd rather lose the election, than win it by implementing Gordon Brown's tax rises.
    If the tories lost an election with the taxes still at the highest in 70 years, they would never, ever recover.
  • Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    It's also possible that they go for 2 and it does work but this isn't immediately obvious, and the next Labour government reaps the reward for her tough decisions.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    Best just to assume that Leon the epileptic canary is simply wrong, again.
    OK so what is the null hypothesis here, the equivalent of Of course it was a bat sold in the market, which Leon is perversely refusing to accept? Cos it looks like a completely batshit thing for anyone to have done.
    If it's batshit, surely we're back to Russia being guilty? They are the batshits.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    They could have lent the kit to the Ukrainians for an afternoon. For a training exercise like.

    "But bring it back in one piece - and whatever you do, don't even think about arming the explosives at these four locations...."
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,222
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    Anyway I wouldn't hang a dog on the evidence of a death certificate. George V's presumably did not say murder.
    Doctors are strongly discouraged from citing "old age" as the only cause of death and have been since, I believe, Shipman.

    Looking at the guidance (PDF, section 4.3), I'm far from sure that the conditions are fulfilled.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    I recall one of the proposed answers to the 'French paradox' - French people drink oodles of red wine, eat lots of fats but don't die of heart attacks. The theory went that French doctors used to record 'natural causes' rather than 'heart attack' on death certificates. May be utter rubbish.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    Anyway I wouldn't hang a dog on the evidence of a death certificate. George V's presumably did not say murder.
    Was George V murdered?
    Anyway does a death certificate ever say murder on it. More likely to be some physical cause lik manual asphyxiation or renal failure.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,493

    Yes Mike, I was thinking earlier just how much this felt like the run up to Tony Blair's landslide win, but.....there is one big difference. Blair was actually popular himself, and voters were enthusiastic about New Labour. Starmer doesn't have the same appeal, and there is no Project. This time Labour's poll leads are based on dislike of the Government, and contempt for the Tories.

    Goodness knows what kind of leads we will see if people ever take to Starmer, or begin to think 'You know something, maybe Socialism isn't s so bad after all.'

    Is that partly a hangover from the Corbyn era rather than a dislike of Starmer,?


    I've been 'anyone but the Tories" forever, but I can still scent the bad smell emitted from Corbyn Labour. Even now, I would be more comfortable ejecting Alun Cairns' by voting LD than Labour.
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    My Mum died of old age. If it's good enough for her...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,222

    Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    So does option 1.
  • Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    No pain, no gain.

    Decades of governments trying to shield people from pain is what has gotten us into this mess. The country is bankrupt due to preventing a natural virus from spreading, houses are unaffordable to millions because a one-way ratchet shielded those with houses from going into negative equity, and so on and so forth.

    If you prevent pain, you prevent creative destruction, you prevent growth, you prevent social mobility and you entrench problems.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    I am a Bringer of Truth and Light
    It's going to end up being some idiotic Swedish trawler. One of Stuart's mates.
    Hell of a trawler. The Nordstreams were designed to withstand the anchor dragging from an aircraft carrier.....
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    No pain, no gain.

    Decades of governments trying to shield people from pain is what has gotten us into this mess. The country is bankrupt due to preventing a natural virus from spreading, houses are unaffordable to millions because a one-way ratchet shielded those with houses from going into negative equity, and so on and so forth.

    If you prevent pain, you prevent creative destruction, you prevent growth, you prevent social mobility and you entrench problems.
    The budget was presented as delivering growth, not pain, not "creative" destruction.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,956
    edited September 29

    Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    No pain, no gain.

    Decades of governments trying to shield people from pain is what has gotten us into this mess. The country is bankrupt due to preventing a natural virus from spreading, houses are unaffordable to millions because a one-way ratchet shielded those with houses from going into negative equity, and so on and so forth.

    If you prevent pain, you prevent creative destruction, you prevent growth, you prevent social mobility and you entrench problems.
    The budget was presented as delivering growth, not pain, not "creative" destruction.
    The two go hand in hand. How you present it is just spin.

    Creative destruction is what allows growth.

    Stability is another name for stagnation.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Leon said:

    More evidence that America did it

    The Times came out with the bald assertion. Russia did it. Now? A quiet but definite change of mind, and an article subtly edited

    "Update: these claims & quotes (Russia "probably premeditated and planned for" sabotage) have been deleted from the new version of The Times' story, which is a lot more cautious. Original below.

    https://thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-nord-stream-pipeline-with-underwater-drone-says-defence-source-wkkcgshzv"

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1575424459741270016?s=20&t=TEnmgg5hDYaoTV2GNhC9gA

    Verdict? Western intelligence agencies and therefore western governments are in little doubt. America did it. But no one will ever say it, and no one will ever "know"

    That's good evidence for nothing more than your ability to reason conspiratorially.
    And yet, conspiracies do happen. Indeed conspiracies about conspiracies DO happen

    Lab Leak is the classic example


    Here is the defining paragraph of that seminal letter to the Lancet early in 2020, which managed to close down debate about Covid origins for over a year. Remember Facebook literally banned mere discussion of the theory it might have come from the lab. For a year

    "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"

    All total bollocks. Not only that, lying bollocks. At the end of the letter the authors declare "no conflict of interest", whereas the guy who organised the whole letter and wrote the first draft, Peter Daszak, DID THE VIROLOGICAL WORK AT WUHAN and was co-head of the lab

    I mean, what possible conflict of interest could HE have in dismissing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory"?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)


    So that is an actual - and globally significant - example of a conspiracy hidden by allegations of conspiracy. And in this case, curiously, they got it to work by attaching the ideas of trump and alt.right to the very idea of Lab Leak

    Which, if you look back, is insane

    I am 98% certain the virus came from the lab. I am much less certain who blew up the pipeline, I am tempted to guess America, but it is a wild guess. But people suddenly saying it is an "alt-right conspiracy theory" makes me more suspicious of Washington, not less



    Which version of coming from the lab though? Do you think (a) a natural virus, that escaped or (b) a genetically modified virus that escaped?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426

    Oh God I've suddenly started to feel sorry for Liz Truss.

    Just remember she's been a minister for the last 10 years.
    ...and she really really wanted the job.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    Best just to assume that Leon the epileptic canary is simply wrong, again.
    OK so what is the null hypothesis here, the equivalent of Of course it was a bat sold in the market, which Leon is perversely refusing to accept? Cos it looks like a completely batshit thing for anyone to have done.
    I like your repetition of bat/batshit there. Anyway... the null hypothesis is that Leon is a racist who regularly spouts Trumpian fantasies. We all know this. Why bother engaging with his wurblings?
    If you're still at the stage you think "Lab Leak" is a "Trumpian fantasy" then there isn't much hope for you

    I mean, Jesus FC: aren't you an academic?! The depths of this pure, boneheaded, incurious stupidity, revealed in the last few years, are quite something
  • Incidentally, does anyone know who has had to write off their $21bn safe-infrastructure investment in NordStream 2?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    The central premise of the hawks in the Kremlin clearly seems to be that the West is weak. We have no stomach for conflict. Russia only has to be brutal and vicious enough to get us to back off.

    I was wondering this morning whether a pre-emtive tactical nuclear strike, perhaps on a Russian military base, might be a tactic.

    Putin should be in no doubt that should it come to it, we will pull them pistols. We will reduce Russia's cities to ashes.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,644
    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    The counter to this is - how many retired CIA guys did they ask that wouldn't suggest Putin will go nuclear?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,304
    ….
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    A
    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    I think he's deliberately cornered both himself and Russia itself, rendering any coup ineffective.

    Cutting out Nordstream is part of that - a key negotiation asset deliberately destroyed.

    I use this tactic a lot to get stuff done : Announce to your boss that something will be finished by COB, or your friends that you are going to run a Marathon.

    Thanks, TED talk, etc
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    edited September 29
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    So does option 1.
    Sure, but we have to have elections and changes of Government. The current crisis was self-inflicted:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/29/economy/uk-economic-crisis/index.html
  • DavidL said:

    Sterling is edging towards $1.10 today. The gilt market rates are edging up again but more in line with similar moves in Europe than on Wednesday morning. In short the "crisis" that filled the BBC news programs seems to have gone back to a gentle simmer and those headlines look more than a tad overdone.

    As I have said a few times 2008 this ain't.

    I think that the government made yet another mistake in not bringing forward the November budget. The government is suffering a serious lack of trust and credibility and they need to see the OBR stamp on things. The sooner that this can be done the better.

    If these headlines are forgotten in a few days and things remain relatively stable then the bet on a Labour majority looks unattractive. If, however, there are further squalls then it will become a no brainer. At which point, of course, the current price will no longer be available.

    There's only one way that mortgage rates are going - up. There's only one thing going to happen to public spending - way down. The cost of living is going to remain very high. The public realm is going to become more degraded. The long-term implications of this week, whatever happens in the markets now, is that the government will own all of it entirely. It's only get out of jail card is sharp, sustained growth within the next two years that people can feel. It's possible. I am not sure it is very likely.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Why would America zap the pipeline?

    For a start it's a pre-emptive warning to Putin by the USA: "we too are prepared to do crazy or violent things, so you bluff won't work, we will also go to the brink and maybe beyond"

    In fact this fits perfectly with Deterrence Theory. You should EXPECT America to do something like this, and so they have done it

    Here's an idea. You like travel. Put on your fucking Speedos, jump in, and go and have a look at the fucking pipeline for yourself. Take your time, make sure you have all the salient facts, and tell us what you find when you come back.
    I am a Bringer of Truth and Light
    It's going to end up being some idiotic Swedish trawler. One of Stuart's mates.
    Hell of a trawler. The Nordstreams were designed to withstand the anchor dragging from an aircraft carrier.....
    There has been some evidence recently that Russian engineering isn't quite what we expected it to be...
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Two things you probably won't read in the UK press.

    German inflation now above 10%.

    European consumer confidence below level of 2012 sovereign debt crisis.

    Lets rejoin...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    No pain, no gain.

    Decades of governments trying to shield people from pain is what has gotten us into this mess. The country is bankrupt due to preventing a natural virus from spreading, houses are unaffordable to millions because a one-way ratchet shielded those with houses from going into negative equity, and so on and so forth.

    If you prevent pain, you prevent creative destruction, you prevent growth, you prevent social mobility and you entrench problems.
    The budget was presented as delivering growth, not pain, not "creative" destruction.
    The two go hand in hand. How you present it is just spin.

    Creative destruction is what allows growth.

    Stability is another name for stagnation.
    It's odd, because I distinctly remember periods of growth in the economy that weren't associated with the £ in freefall, financial markets in chaos, and the Bank of England having to make emergency spends of billions of £...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    ….

    THat post appears to be somewhat ellipsical.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    The Americans could take out the Crimea bridge. However many megatons that needed. It would send a signal.

    And a thousand non-nuke cruise missiles targeting Russia's hydrocarbons industry. That would keep the rest of OPEC sweet at least.
  • The Chancellor say we are sticking to the growth Plan, and of course as we all know, there's no F in Plan.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Leon said:

    More evidence that America did it

    The Times came out with the bald assertion. Russia did it. Now? A quiet but definite change of mind, and an article subtly edited

    "Update: these claims & quotes (Russia "probably premeditated and planned for" sabotage) have been deleted from the new version of The Times' story, which is a lot more cautious. Original below.

    https://thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-probably-bombed-nord-stream-pipeline-with-underwater-drone-says-defence-source-wkkcgshzv"

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1575424459741270016?s=20&t=TEnmgg5hDYaoTV2GNhC9gA

    Verdict? Western intelligence agencies and therefore western governments are in little doubt. America did it. But no one will ever say it, and no one will ever "know"

    That's good evidence for nothing more than your ability to reason conspiratorially.
    And yet, conspiracies do happen. Indeed conspiracies about conspiracies DO happen

    Lab Leak is the classic example


    Here is the defining paragraph of that seminal letter to the Lancet early in 2020, which managed to close down debate about Covid origins for over a year. Remember Facebook literally banned mere discussion of the theory it might have come from the lab. For a year

    "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"

    All total bollocks. Not only that, lying bollocks. At the end of the letter the authors declare "no conflict of interest", whereas the guy who organised the whole letter and wrote the first draft, Peter Daszak, DID THE VIROLOGICAL WORK AT WUHAN and was co-head of the lab

    I mean, what possible conflict of interest could HE have in dismissing the lab leak theory as a "conspiracy theory"?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)


    So that is an actual - and globally significant - example of a conspiracy hidden by allegations of conspiracy. And in this case, curiously, they got it to work by attaching the ideas of trump and alt.right to the very idea of Lab Leak

    Which, if you look back, is insane

    I am 98% certain the virus came from the lab. I am much less certain who blew up the pipeline, I am tempted to guess America, but it is a wild guess. But people suddenly saying it is an "alt-right conspiracy theory" makes me more suspicious of Washington, not less



    Which version of coming from the lab though? Do you think (a) a natural virus, that escaped or (b) a genetically modified virus that escaped?
    Don't know. Probably (b)? - as they were deliberately trying to create a novel bat coronavirus engineered to be more pathogenic for humans: this is exactly what they were attempting, and they requested funding for it from Fauci, who turned it down as being to dangerous. Gain of Function

    Peter Daszak discussing his work in 2016


    "Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. Then we… Well I didn’t do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people.

    “You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers,” he adds."


    https://thenationalpulse.com/2021/06/08/daszak-reveals-chinese-colleagues-manipulating-coronaviruses/

    But you know what? I don't want to spend all day discussing this. It's turned into a theological debate and those who don't want to believe can no longer be persuaded

  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    The Americans could take out the Crimea bridge. However many megatons that needed. It would send a signal.

    And a thousand non-nuke cruise missiles targeting Russia's hydrocarbons industry. That would keep the rest of OPEC sweet at least.
    The Kremlin hawks still seem to think we will blink. Time to disabuse them..?
  • Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    No pain, no gain.

    Decades of governments trying to shield people from pain is what has gotten us into this mess. The country is bankrupt due to preventing a natural virus from spreading, houses are unaffordable to millions because a one-way ratchet shielded those with houses from going into negative equity, and so on and so forth.

    If you prevent pain, you prevent creative destruction, you prevent growth, you prevent social mobility and you entrench problems.
    The budget was presented as delivering growth, not pain, not "creative" destruction.
    The two go hand in hand. How you present it is just spin.

    Creative destruction is what allows growth.

    Stability is another name for stagnation.
    It's odd, because I distinctly remember periods of growth in the economy that weren't associated with the £ in freefall, financial markets in chaos, and the Bank of England having to make emergency spends of billions of £...
    Is the concept of "growing pains" new to you though?
  • PeterMPeterM Posts: 302
    MISTY said:

    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    The central premise of the hawks in the Kremlin clearly seems to be that the West is weak. We have no stomach for conflict. Russia only has to be brutal and vicious enough to get us to back off.

    I was wondering this morning whether a pre-emtive tactical nuclear strike, perhaps on a Russian military base, might be a tactic.

    Putin should be in no doubt that should it come to it, we will pull them pistols. We will reduce Russia's cities to ashes.
    as long as you dont mind wandering around a desolate irradiated london whilst eating rats..
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,639
    Betting money on a Labour majority at this stage feels unwise to me. The price is likely to come back out and the fundamentals are still against it as an outcome.

    Remember it’s the Tory conference in a few days, the market panic has passed; and expectations for Truss are now set so low that if she can walk in a straight line to the podium and say her own name, there’s going to be a media comeback narrative.
  • DavidL said:

    Sterling is edging towards $1.10 today. The gilt market rates are edging up again but more in line with similar moves in Europe than on Wednesday morning. In short the "crisis" that filled the BBC news programs seems to have gone back to a gentle simmer and those headlines look more than a tad overdone.

    As I have said a few times 2008 this ain't.

    I think that the government made yet another mistake in not bringing forward the November budget. The government is suffering a serious lack of trust and credibility and they need to see the OBR stamp on things. The sooner that this can be done the better.

    If these headlines are forgotten in a few days and things remain relatively stable then the bet on a Labour majority looks unattractive. If, however, there are further squalls then it will become a no brainer. At which point, of course, the current price will no longer be available.

    There's only one way that mortgage rates are going - up. There's only one thing going to happen to public spending - way down. The cost of living is going to remain very high. The public realm is going to become more degraded. The long-term implications of this week, whatever happens in the markets now, is that the government will own all of it entirely. It's only get out of jail card is sharp, sustained growth within the next two years that people can feel. It's possible. I am not sure it is very likely.

    I think that the events of the past few days have had sufficient cut-through in the news, even for people who normally don't pay too much attention, that the narrative is now set and will be impossible for the government to reverse, We all know that tough times are ahead: we've hardly started on the impact of higher energy prices yet, and mortgages haven't yet gone up, and the big upcoming cuts to public spending aren't yet in the mix. Because the narrative is now set, all of this bad news, even in the cases caused by external factors, are going to be seen by voters as the result of government failure or, even worse, deliberate policy.

    I don't think this is reversible, and certainly not by a government as totally inept at communication as this one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    Incidentally, does anyone know who has had to write off their $21bn safe-infrastructure investment in NordStream 2?

    Some German fucker.

    His credibility has been Schrodered.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179

    Leon said:

    This CNN interview is..... unnerving

    Retired but articulate CIA guy is interviewed about Putin. He says Putin, according to his Russian contacts, is likely to "go nuclear". Putin may get stopped by his own people but we can't rely on that. Putin has cornered himself like a mad rat, he has few options left, and this is one

    https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1575272663924211712?s=20&t=Xy9RlkbEHgO7xLqfYucKgA

    Watch from 5:23

    He also concludes that if and when Putin does drop a tactical nuke, we won't be able to respond in kind, we won't use strategic nukes because that ends the world. In other words, this might work for Putin, which makes it worse

    The Americans could take out the Crimea bridge. However many megatons that needed. It would send a signal.

    And a thousand non-nuke cruise missiles targeting Russia's hydrocarbons industry. That would keep the rest of OPEC sweet at least.
    To be honest, I'm surprised the Ukrainians haven't taken out the Crimea bridge already. Couple of bombs in the right place; end of story!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited September 29
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    Good to confirm that all the nonsense on here about the Queen already being dead by 12.30 were wrong.

    People sometimes take a while to die (even when it is obvious they are on the way). And I don't think the Palace would ever outright lie in a press release.

    I like that it's the local Braemar GP who certified it. "Would you mind popping over?"

    What is the confirmation?
    The death certificate has been published.

    It gives the cause of death as 'old age' which doesn't actually ring true. I suspect there was another immediate cause.

    But it gives the time of death as 15.10.
    So I win, because whoever I was arguing with contended it was 4.30 on the dot.
    No, i said the PM was informed at 4.30, not that the queen died at 4.30. I've never claimed that.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Driver said:

    It seems to me that the Tories really only have two options:
    1. Dump Truss and Kwarteng
    2. Go hell for leather on the Truss/Kwarteng plan in the hope that it works
    They will almost certainly go for 2. The chances are that will cost them at least two general elections.

    Option 1 certainly costs them at least two general elections.
    And Option 2 involves a lot of pain for a lot of people.
    No pain, no gain.

    Decades of governments trying to shield people from pain is what has gotten us into this mess. The country is bankrupt due to preventing a natural virus from spreading, houses are unaffordable to millions because a one-way ratchet shielded those with houses from going into negative equity, and so on and so forth.

    If you prevent pain, you prevent creative destruction, you prevent growth, you prevent social mobility and you entrench problems.
    The budget was presented as delivering growth, not pain, not "creative" destruction.
    The two go hand in hand. How you present it is just spin.

    Creative destruction is what allows growth.

    Stability is another name for stagnation.
    It's odd, because I distinctly remember periods of growth in the economy that weren't associated with the £ in freefall, financial markets in chaos, and the Bank of England having to make emergency spends of billions of £...
    Is the concept of "growing pains" new to you though?
    It's a good concept for teenagers. I'm not clear if it helps here. I am still struggling to remember previous periods of growth in the economy that saw the £ in freefall, financial markets in chaos, and the Bank of England having to make emergency spends of billions of £...
This discussion has been closed.