politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Damian McBride wonders why there’s been no official denial

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Damian McBride wonders why there’s been no official denial of the pig story from Team Dave

Ex-Brown spin doctor says Cameron's team made pig story worse by not issuing official denial
http://t.co/TYiQixf8yt pic.twitter.com/EgS15hYuqf

Read the full story here

SouthamObserver

This still? Dave might have done it, he might not have. No-one is surprised that young, repressed uber-toffs behave in bizarre ways. But like the rest of us they then grow up. Mostly. We are never going to know the truth about the pig's head. And no-one really cares. It was funny and vaguely interesting for a while. Now it is boring. The world turns.

Sean_F

The Lyndon Johnson anecdote comes to mind. No one wants to officially deny that they're a pig f***er.

kle4

I simply disagree it would have made a difference. I don't follow the logic employed that it would throw cold water over it, not leadt because more claims were coming in the mail anyway. Weather the storm and move on just as good as as any other tactic.

Day 4 allegations had better be good,it's pretty dull we are still on,y talking about day 1,

GIN1138

Damian McBride is a nasty ******* and it wouldn't surprise me if he has collaborated with Lord Ashcroft's muck raking in some way...

Sean_F

FPT I agree with St. Augustine that abstinence is far easier than moderation. If I have a glass of wine, I have to finish the bottle. So, it's best to avoid that first glass.

John_M

Good morning all. Syria burns. China slumps. VW commits massive fraud.

Here, we have one of the most discredited men in British politics musing on the *alleged* idiotic behaviour of our prime minister 30 odd years ago. Next thread please!

blackburn63

A discredited spin doctor commenting on spin doctors and whether or not a bloke 30 years ago did a silly thing.

Welcome to the ridiculous world we live in, no wonder so few people are engaged in politics.

kle4

Honestly, I'm not sure I could handle large quantities of alcohol - I'm so not a morning person I feel practically hung over most mornings in any case, gods know what I'd be like if I had been drinking.

Plato_Says

On principle, I don't read anything Mr McBride says.

kle4

blackburn63 said:

A discredited spin doctor commenting on spin doctors and whether or not a bloke 30 years ago did a silly thing.

Welcome to the ridiculous world we live in, no wonder so few people are engaged in politics.

Yes, it turns out teetotal vegetarian Marxists obsessed with politics are what get people engaged these-days - in fairness not many would have predicted that so I'm not surprised it wasn't tried before.

Slackbladder

I disagree with McBride here. In the twitter age, you cannot control a story. I went to bed before even hearing of this on sunday night, and by monday morning when I work up, it was already everywhere.

In this case a denial would have utterly been the worst option, as even if the pig thing might be true or not true, there might be other things which are.

DecrepitJohnL

CCHQ spin -- shoot the messenger, and pb seems to extend that to McBride, who instead suggests killing the message might have been a better tactic.

On the substance of the story, I still don't think anyone cares very much, but so far it has not gone away -- Plan A has not worked.

blackburn63

Mr kle, for weeks all we've heard is Corbyn's past, Cameron's past, the country is potentially in crisis and we get pigs, ex girlfriends and VW cars shoved down our throats, its nauseating.

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

CCHQ spin -- shoot the messenger, and pb seems to extend that to McBride, who instead suggests killing the message might have been a better tactic.

On the substance of the story, I still don't think anyone cares very much, but so far it has not gone away -- Plan A has not worked.

The message was unkillabe, but it should tie on its own if not fed. And given the laughter many of us have gotten from this story, that view is not reflective a desire to see it killed.

Beverley_C

Denials are de rigeur in politics so no one takes them seriously anyway.

I think McBride is wrong. To my mind he shows all the signs of someone obsessed with the mechanics of politics rather than the politics itself.

tlg86

I think the government has done the right thing. When I got in from work on Monday my parents new nothing of the pig story simply because they don't use the internet and don't read newspapers. The broadcast media have to be careful what they say and the way they say it, but as soon as you start acknowledging a story then you leave yourself open to further questions.

richardDodd

Those moon astronauts didn't deny the moon was made of cheese either..

Pulpstar

Twitter trending:

#autumnalequinox
#VWslogans
Yogi Berra
#BiVisibilityDay
#CorrieLive
#NewMuppetPlotlines
George Ford
Ancelotti
Happy Birthday To You
Joshua Oxley

The story has pretty much blown over already. There'll be a few gags on HIGNFY and it's got some publicity for the book but it's not that serious. Also if Dave denies this, what about the Ashcroft non dom status questions.

"You denied relations with the pig, Mr Prime Minister - why can't you deny this ?" becomes an attack line for journos.

A denial would have just put petrol on the flames tbh.

Sandpit

SouthamObserver said:

This still? Dave might have done it, he might not have. No-one is surprised that young, repressed uber-toffs behave in bizarre ways. But like the rest of us they then grow up. Mostly. We are never going to know the truth about the pig's head. And no-one really cares. It was funny and vaguely interesting for a while. Now it is boring. The world turns.

Well said. I am sure that most who went to university in the '80s and '90s have similar stories to tell about student drinking clubs and dinner parties.

My opinion of both Lord Ashcroft and Iain Dale is diminishing rapidly, I am assuming that they weren't expecting Cameron to still be in the big chair - that they still published the book even though he is suggests a nasty hatchet job.

david_herdson

I disagree with McBride. It was noticable that some news outlets didn't feature the story, or at least, featured it in a very guarded manner. To have issued a denial would have enabled - and, in the light of the allegations, almost obliged - them to run with 'PM denies porking pig', which wouldn't exactly have killed the story.

There were essentially three options (not all mutually exclusive, though 1 and 2 are).

1. Deny it.
2. Keep schtum, take the moral high ground and tough it out until it blows over.
3. Try to smother it with something else.

None are particularly attractive given the smirk-inducing nature of the allegations but I think to have engaged with the story would then have given the green light for journalists to put an endless series of similar stories to No 10 and if the PM's office changed tack, they'd have then had to justify why they weren't denying any particular allegation.

Besides, if they had denied it, there'd have been follow-up questions about whether Cameron was going to take legal action. It wouldn't have killed the story which, from a political point of view, is surely the objective.

TheScreamingEagles

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

JEO

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story. His response to the legitimate criticism just makes it worse. There is a very ugly me-me-me attitude in finance, with no respect for the common good, which is what you get when you throw vast amounts of money at young immature men. As with the interview of that Dutch financial journalist from the other day, it shows that we have just put a sticking plaster over the problems in the banking sector. We need root and branch cultural reform of finance, and to do that we need to change the incentive system.

JEO

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

What is most strange about Ashcroft is that he seems to be openly admitting his grudge was because his money did not get him a government job. He thinks his money should be able to get him anything, even a seat at the highest table, and then throws a wobbly when he does not get it. Thank God he's not a minister.

Sandpit

Slackbladder said:

I disagree with McBride here. In the twitter age, you cannot control a story. I went to bed before even hearing of this on sunday night, and by monday morning when I work up, it was already everywhere.

In this case a denial would have utterly been the worst option, as even if the pig thing might be true or not true, there might be other things which are.

Given that the pig story is both old and trivial, with modern media as it is, an official denial serves only to keep the story running.

No 10 will sit tight and hope that more important things such as Syria and the EU will kick it off the front pages by tomorrow.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

A strong denial would immediately lead to the demand of a libel action. Which is lose-lose for Cameron.

Also, McBride's advice may not necessarily be absolutely bloody brilliant, or in Cameron's best interest. Although by raising this question he has made another headline for the story and tried to raise a question mark over it.

Carolus_Rex

david_herdson said:

There were essentially three options (not all mutually exclusive, though 1 and 2 are).

1. Deny it.
2. Keep schtum, take the moral high ground and tough it out until it blows over.
3. Try to smother it with something else.

.

In a sense option 3. was already sorted for them. The real story, the non-dom question, has been buried under a mound of pigsh*t.

watford30

The disgraced McBride offering advice to spin doctors? Hilarious.

Whatever next from The Grauniad - Chris Huhne writing about The Highway Code, or Bob Diamond's thoughts on ethical banking.

Rather than pour another thimble of petrol on the ashes, as he intended, Slimy Damien should crawl back under his rock, and never show his shamed face in the media again.

perdix

McBride is very experienced in spreading poison, worse than Mandelson. I thought he'd gone to a monastery to repent his sins, but it was just an RC school - God help them, literally.

megalomaniacs4u

McBride forgets his Yes Minister - never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

TGOHF

How many General Elections for Gordon Brown PM did McBride win ?

The author Robert Harris on twitter seems to have LA's number..

Plato_Says

Well said. In the past, I defended him for his charitable works - I won't be doing so again.

He's really taken axe-grinding to a whole new level.

I thought the Tory quoted FPTs was spot on "Ashcroft is a suicide bomber with enough explosives to kill is own reputation, but not enough to really wound his target"

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

What is most strange about Ashcroft is that he seems to be openly admitting his grudge was because his money did not get him a government job. He thinks his money should be able to get him anything, even a seat at the highest table, and then throws a wobbly when he does not get it. Thank God he's not a minister.

Casino_Royale

I wouldn't take the slightest bit of notice of what the snakeoil salesman McBride says.

This is the man who tried to smear George Osborne and his wife with false accusations himself, and was forced to quit his job when exposed.

kle4

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

What is most strange about Ashcroft is that he seems to be openly admitting his grudge was because his money did not get him a government job. He thinks his money should be able to get him anything, even a seat at the highest table, and then throws a wobbly when he does not get it. Thank God he's not a minister.

Yes, i appreciate that he does some good stuff, and his polling has led to much entertainments, but openly admitting he feels betrayed he didn't get a jobhe feels was promised to him puts the lie to any denials this is for revenge. Billionaires can be petty and self defeating too it would seem.

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

How many General Elections for Gordon Brown PM did McBride win ?

The author Robert Harris on twitter seems to have LA's number..

I'm sure Dave wants to pour molten gold down Lord A's gob.

@Robert___Harris: There is always something vaguely sinister about rich men dabbling in politics, from Crassus through James Goldsmith to Lord Ashcroft.

Pulpstar

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story. His response to the legitimate criticism just makes it worse. There is a very ugly me-me-me attitude in finance, with no respect for the common good, which is what you get when you throw vast amounts of money at young immature men. As with the interview of that Dutch financial journalist from the other day, it shows that we have just put a sticking plaster over the problems in the banking sector. We need root and branch cultural reform of finance, and to do that we need to change the incentive system.

The most likely outcome of the 2016 US presidentials is still a Hilary Clinton administration. She's going to cap drug prices as a matter of policy.

He'd likely be tarred and feathered if he showed up at Pfizer HQ any time soon for doing massive damage I reckon !

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

CCHQ spin -- shoot the messenger, and pb seems to extend that to McBride, who instead suggests killing the message might have been a better tactic.

On the substance of the story, I still don't think anyone cares very much, but so far it has not gone away -- Plan A has not worked.

McBride wanted to create smears against members of the opposition, whilst working within Number 10. It's perfectly fair to point out that he might not be the best person to talk objectively about such matters. In fact, the story could have come straight out of Red Rag.

And you can't kill the message. The days of McBride and Campbell style control of the message are more or less over with the dominance of the Internet. The new forms of spin are going to be very, very different.

Beverley_C

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

SouthamObserver

European leaders bent on dissuading Syrian refugees from fleeing to their countries have found an unlikely ally in Islamic State. The militant group has released a flurry of propaganda videos urging those thinking of heading to Europe to reconsider and join them instead.
At least ten videos appeared on ISIS social media accounts within 24 hours, depicting the self-declared caliphate as an earthly paradise and Europe as a den of sin and brutality.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/islamic-state-begs-migrants-come-to-caliphate/story-fnb64oi6-1227540562334

JosiasJessop

Plato_Says said:

Well said. In the past, I defended him for his charitable works - I won't be doing so again.

He's really taken axe-grinding to a whole new level.

I thought the Tory quoted FPTs was spot on "Ashcroft is a suicide bomber with enough explosives to kill is own reputation, but not enough to really wound his target"

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

What is most strange about Ashcroft is that he seems to be openly admitting his grudge was because his money did not get him a government job. He thinks his money should be able to get him anything, even a seat at the highest table, and then throws a wobbly when he does not get it. Thank God he's not a minister.

I'll still applaud him for his charitable works, but temper that with the fact his judgement seems rather faulty, and that it looks like he is not above getting vengeance for perceived slights against him.

People are not one-dimensional.

However, before all this I would have quite liked to meet him. He has deep interests in subjects that interest me, and he could almost certainly hold a good conversation on them. Now, I'd just be worried about what he'd want from me in return for his words.

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

European leaders bent on dissuading Syrian refugees from fleeing to their countries have found an unlikely ally in Islamic State. The militant group has released a flurry of propaganda videos urging those thinking of heading to Europe to reconsider and join them instead.
At least ten videos appeared on ISIS social media accounts within 24 hours, depicting the self-declared caliphate as an earthly paradise and Europe as a den of sin and brutality.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/islamic-state-begs-migrants-come-to-caliphate/story-fnb64oi6-1227540562334

I choose the den of sin

Morris_Dancer

Anyway, more important than a disgraced spin doctor's utterances is today's Scotland Vs Japan rugby match. Will the Brave Blossoms continue their superb form? Will Scotland potentially put themselves in position to top the group?

If Japan win, they could win the group themselves. It could be a cracker.

Also today is Australia Vs Fiji, and the less competitive France Vs Romania.

logical_song

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

How many General Elections for Gordon Brown PM did McBride win ?

The author Robert Harris on twitter seems to have LA's number..

I'm sure Dave wants to pour molten gold down Lord A's gob.

@Robert___Harris: There is always something vaguely sinister about rich men dabbling in politics, from Crassus through James Goldsmith to Lord Ashcroft.

Plus Donald Trump, Nelson Rockefeller (quite liked him). I suppose you could include Zac Goldsmith, although I quite like him too.

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

General Richards was also heavily quoted in Anthony Seldon's Cameron biography last month. I wonder if these are his real views?

'The former head of Britain’s Armed Forces has blamed David Cameron for the rise of Islamic State, saying he lacked ‘the balls’ to crush them militarily when they first emerged as a threat.

In a scathing attack on Cameron’s record on Libya and Syria, General Sir David Richards, ex-chief of the defence staff, said the Prime Minister was more interested in pursuing a ‘Notting Hill liberal agenda’ than showing serious ‘statecraft’. Richards was backed by Britain’s spy chief, who delivered an astonishing personal slap-down to Cameron in a bitter Downing Street clash over Libya.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215566/Ex-Army-head-PM-blame-rise-ISIS-Damning-accusation-Chief-Staff-explosive-new-Cameron-biography.html

madasafish

I have listened to Damian McBride on R4 on Saturday am.. driving back from beekeeping.

He sounds knowledgeable and sincere - but as he's basically a politician I treat his words with all the respect any politician's words have..

As for Lord Ashcroft, any politician's promise is basically as good as the paper it's written on. Everyone knows that. So is Lord Ashcroft a gullible fool?

John_M

SouthamObserver said:

European leaders bent on dissuading Syrian refugees from fleeing to their countries have found an unlikely ally in Islamic State. The militant group has released a flurry of propaganda videos urging those thinking of heading to Europe to reconsider and join them instead.
At least ten videos appeared on ISIS social media accounts within 24 hours, depicting the self-declared caliphate as an earthly paradise and Europe as a den of sin and brutality.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/islamic-state-begs-migrants-come-to-caliphate/story-fnb64oi6-1227540562334

ISIL are not wrong. I intend to take my Yorkipoo on a hike and brutally trample grass all along the Wye. Afterwards I may very well drink tea and eat a biscuit - it depends how decadent I'm feeling.

Slackbladder

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CCHQ spin -- shoot the messenger, and pb seems to extend that to McBride, who instead suggests killing the message might have been a better tactic.

On the substance of the story, I still don't think anyone cares very much, but so far it has not gone away -- Plan A has not worked.

McBride wanted to create smears against members of the opposition, whilst working within Number 10. It's perfectly fair to point out that he might not be the best person to talk objectively about such matters. In fact, the story could have come straight out of Red Rag.

And you can't kill the message. The days of McBride and Campbell style control of the message are more or less over with the dominance of the Internet. The new forms of spin are going to be very, very different.

Ironically I think that twitter has made it easier to deal with. Just ignore the internet froth, things more so quickly on there, we'll have 3 days of pig jokes, and the ADD internet lefties will have some new hashtag to go on about to little to no 'real-world' impact.

Pulpstar

Beverley_C said:

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

It's not got a current patent on it, the thinking behind his price hike is that basically the capital required for Pfizer, Novartis or whoever to invest to produce the drug in the US and the relatively small use of it is not worth doing for them.

Besides if a competitor comes in he just drops the price I guess.

He'll also be banking on the american politico-legal system barring GSK/a Canadian manufacturer importing the drug any time soon.

The market price of the drug is 43 pence, his artificial price of $750 really can't last all that long before law/import changes it - and the regulation that will likely come in if Hilary Clinton wins the US presidentials for all drug manufacturers will hit the whole sector.

But I guess he figures he can make money in the short term.

TGOHF

So was LA's polling simply to identify when the best time to release his book was ?

isam

Pulpstar said:

Beverley_C said:

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

It's not got a current patent on it, the thinking behind his price hike is that basically the capital required for Pfizer, Novartis or whoever to invest to produce the drug in the US and the relatively small use of it is not worth doing for them.

Besides if a competitor comes in he just drops the price I guess.

He'll also be banking on the american politico-legal system barring GSK/a Canadian manufacturer importing the drug any time soon.

The market price of the drug is 43 pence, his artificial price of $750 really can't last all that long before law/import changes it - and the regulation that will likely come in if Hilary Clinton wins the US presidentials for all drug manufacturers will hit the whole sector.

But I guess he figures he can make money in the short term.

Came across as über smarmy on sky news just now... Finishing with a sly grin a la col Saunders to a chicken

TGOHF

Sounds like nobody will submit their car to recall..

" Drivers were told they would be directly contacted by Volkswagen if they had bought a car that was affected.

Motoring experts said the company would either have to limit turbo-boosters, which could affect performance, or fit a larger urea tank to clean fumes before they reach the exhaust. Drivers will then face the added costs of keeping tanks topped up which would be around £50-a-year. "

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, more important than a disgraced spin doctor's utterances is today's Scotland Vs Japan rugby match. Will the Brave Blossoms continue their superb form? Will Scotland potentially put themselves in position to top the group?

If Japan win, they could win the group themselves. It could be a cracker.

Also today is Australia Vs Fiji, and the less competitive France Vs Romania.

This is the Scottish rugby team you're talking about. Their last two great performances were in 2000 and 1990 when they upped their game to deny L'Angleterre the five nations.

We're talking about a side that regularly puts up the most embarrassingly inept performance against any Italian side since the Battle of Zama

BannedInParis

You've got to frame McBride's comments in that he doesn't actually want the best for Cameron.

The moment you deny it ... come on, you just don't link your name to a story like that!

Slackbladder

TGOHF said:

Sounds like nobody will submit their car to recall..

" Drivers were told they would be directly contacted by Volkswagen if they had bought a car that was affected.

Motoring experts said the company would either have to limit turbo-boosters, which could affect performance, or fit a larger urea tank to clean fumes before they reach the exhaust. Drivers will then face the added costs of keeping tanks topped up which would be around £50-a-year. "

They might have to if their cars are excessive and illegal immissionwise.

CD13

Sam,

"'The former head of Britain’s Armed Forces has blamed David Cameron for the rise of Islamic State, saying he lacked ‘the balls’ to crush them militarily."

So he'll be overjoyed to see our new LOTO.

BannedInParis

"Ironically I think that twitter has made it easier to deal with. Just ignore the internet froth, things more so quickly on there, we'll have 3 days of pig jokes, and the ADD internet lefties will have some new hashtag to go on about to little to no 'real-world' impact."

Yeah, this as well.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, I think it should be a good match, and Ladbrokes' odds of 6 for Japan were surprisingly long.

I'm also irked I forgot to compare Japan beating South Africa to their (the Japanese) thwarting of the Mongol invasion.

TGOHF

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, more important than a disgraced spin doctor's utterances is today's Scotland Vs Japan rugby match. Will the Brave Blossoms continue their superb form? Will Scotland potentially put themselves in position to top the group?

If Japan win, they could win the group themselves. It could be a cracker.

Also today is Australia Vs Fiji, and the less competitive France Vs Romania.

This is the Scottish rugby team you're talking about. Their last two great performances were in 2000 and 1990 when they upped their game to deny L'Angleterre the five nations.

We're talking about a side that regularly puts up the most embarrassingly inept performance against any Italian side since the Battle of Zama

The only thing going in Scotland's favour is that they are fresh and Japan played on Saturday.

watford30

Compare and contrast.

This weeks allegations about Cameron and the piggy, with the planned content for Red Rag.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/apr/13/damian-mcbride-derek-draper-emails

Secret video tapes, embarrassing photos, odd behaviour at university. Must be quite easy to start these rumours.

madasafish

TGOHF said:

Sounds like nobody will submit their car to recall..

" Drivers were told they would be directly contacted by Volkswagen if they had bought a car that was affected.

Motoring experts said the company would either have to limit turbo-boosters, which could affect performance, or fit a larger urea tank to clean fumes before they reach the exhaust. Drivers will then face the added costs of keeping tanks topped up which would be around £50-a-year. "

If they tried that in the USA, VAG would have to compensate drivers for the extra costs...£550M a year for 11 million cars x remaining life of car say 8 years = £4.4B
.

VAG are hoping to get off cheap... the lawsuits will kill them if they go down that route.

Sandpit

TGOHF said:

Sounds like nobody will submit their car to recall..

" Drivers were told they would be directly contacted by Volkswagen if they had bought a car that was affected.

Motoring experts said the company would either have to limit turbo-boosters, which could affect performance, or fit a larger urea tank to clean fumes before they reach the exhaust. Drivers will then face the added costs of keeping tanks topped up which would be around £50-a-year. "

This could blow into a huge story as there's a high possibility that it wasn't just VW that were playing this game either.

The crunch would come if the affected models were refused an MoT unless the recall work was carried out, which is pretty likely if the manufacturer was shown to be dramatically gaming the system. The recall costs and rectification work would surely fall on the manufacturer rather than the consumer.

A good piece on how this story came about, almost by accident. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11883343/volkswagen-scandal-campaigners-expose-world-biggest-car-company.html

Pulpstar

Slackbladder said:

TGOHF said:

Sounds like nobody will submit their car to recall..

" Drivers were told they would be directly contacted by Volkswagen if they had bought a car that was affected.

Motoring experts said the company would either have to limit turbo-boosters, which could affect performance, or fit a larger urea tank to clean fumes before they reach the exhaust. Drivers will then face the added costs of keeping tanks topped up which would be around £50-a-year. "

They might have to if their cars are excessive and illegal immissionwise.

Surely this will turn into the next big project for the ambulance chasers who've been working on PPI claims the last few years ?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I think it should be a good match, and Ladbrokes' odds of 6 for Japan were surprisingly long.

I'm also irked I forgot to compare Japan beating South Africa to their (the Japanese) thwarting of the Mongol invasion.

Unfortunately for me I have a meeting at 3:30pm so shall miss the second half.

TheScreamingEagles

The other aspect to this story.

Neither Mike or I have done a single thread on the Lib Dem conference.

SimonStClare

Morning all.

I disagree with McBride’s conclusion that the story was made worse and doubt that any response from Number.10 would have made a blind bit of difference, other than providing more headlines thus keeping the story going. - Not dignifying the book with a response was probably the best move under the circumstances, its implication was clear, Cameron was not going to play the media game.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

The other aspect to this story.

Neither Mike or I have done a single thread on the Lib Dem conference.

Who ?

JEO

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Pulpstar

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

It's not a patent issue ! It is a production one.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The other aspect to this story.

Neither Mike or I have done a single thread on the Lib Dem conference.

Who ?

A party that could do a good scandal.

Mark Oaten, Chris Huhne and Jeremy Thorpe

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, more important than a disgraced spin doctor's utterances is today's Scotland Vs Japan rugby match. Will the Brave Blossoms continue their superb form? Will Scotland potentially put themselves in position to top the group?

If Japan win, they could win the group themselves. It could be a cracker.

Also today is Australia Vs Fiji, and the less competitive France Vs Romania.

This is the Scottish rugby team you're talking about. Their last two great performances were in 2000 and 1990 when they upped their game to deny L'Angleterre the five nations.

We're talking about a side that regularly puts up the most embarrassingly inept performance against any Italian side since the Battle of Zama

Hey, we had a great performance in 2010 to smash Ireland in Dublin.

SouthamObserver

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Patents are not a monopoly right, they are a right to exclude; ie, the right to prevent unauthorised use of the patented invention. It's a very different thing. There are 27,000 US patents covering cures for the common cold currently in force.

TheScreamingEagles

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, more important than a disgraced spin doctor's utterances is today's Scotland Vs Japan rugby match. Will the Brave Blossoms continue their superb form? Will Scotland potentially put themselves in position to top the group?

If Japan win, they could win the group themselves. It could be a cracker.

Also today is Australia Vs Fiji, and the less competitive France Vs Romania.

This is the Scottish rugby team you're talking about. Their last two great performances were in 2000 and 1990 when they upped their game to deny L'Angleterre the five nations.

We're talking about a side that regularly puts up the most embarrassingly inept performance against any Italian side since the Battle of Zama

Hey, we had a great performance in 2010 to smash Ireland in Dublin.

Ok. Three decent performances in twenty five years

TGOHF

madasafish said:

TGOHF said:

Sounds like nobody will submit their car to recall..

" Drivers were told they would be directly contacted by Volkswagen if they had bought a car that was affected.

Motoring experts said the company would either have to limit turbo-boosters, which could affect performance, or fit a larger urea tank to clean fumes before they reach the exhaust. Drivers will then face the added costs of keeping tanks topped up which would be around £50-a-year. "

If they tried that in the USA, VAG would have to compensate drivers for the extra costs...£550M a year for 11 million cars x remaining life of car say 8 years = £4.4B
.

VAG are hoping to get off cheap... the lawsuits will kill them if they go down that route.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03449/230915-MATT-WEB_3449455a.jpg

TudorRose

Slackbladder said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CCHQ spin -- shoot the messenger, and pb seems to extend that to McBride, who instead suggests killing the message might have been a better tactic.

On the substance of the story, I still don't think anyone cares very much, but so far it has not gone away -- Plan A has not worked.

McBride wanted to create smears against members of the opposition, whilst working within Number 10. It's perfectly fair to point out that he might not be the best person to talk objectively about such matters. In fact, the story could have come straight out of Red Rag.

And you can't kill the message. The days of McBride and Campbell style control of the message are more or less over with the dominance of the Internet. The new forms of spin are going to be very, very different.

Ironically I think that twitter has made it easier to deal with. Just ignore the internet froth, things more so quickly on there, we'll have 3 days of pig jokes, and the ADD internet lefties will have some new hashtag to go on about to little to no 'real-world' impact.

And I bet Dennis Skinner will have a nice line in 'I always said they had their snouts in the trough' line at PMQs.

MarqueeMark

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

What is most strange about Ashcroft is that he seems to be openly admitting his grudge was because his money did not get him a government job. He thinks his money should be able to get him anything, even a seat at the highest table, and then throws a wobbly when he does not get it. Thank God he's not a minister.

Amen to that.

Morris_Dancer

EU meeting to hand out gimp suits to Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34332759

Be interesting to see if this is resolved by the time we have our referendum.

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

The other aspect to this story.

Neither Mike or I have done a single thread on the Lib Dem conference.

8 middle-aged white blokes in a room. Pffft.....

Plato_Says

Thought you'd enjoy this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_leather

Patent leather is a type of coated leather that has a very glossy, shiny finish.[1][2] The coating process was brought to the United States and improved by inventor Seth Boyden of Newark, New Jersey in 1818, with commercial manufacture beginning September 20, 1819. Boyden's process, which he never patented,[3] used a linseed oil–based lacquer coating. Modern patent leather usually has a plastic coating.

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

The CCHQ strategy has worked insofar as Dizzy Izzy Oakeshott admitted the story was bollocks and the likes of General Richards have made their displeasure known about how they've had their views maliciously portrayed by the book.

Lord Ashcroft comes out of this badly, I half expect him to leave a boiling bunny in Dave's kitchen.

Best of all it has taken the heat off Corbyn which will keep him in situ.

What is most strange about Ashcroft is that he seems to be openly admitting his grudge was because his money did not get him a government job. He thinks his money should be able to get him anything, even a seat at the highest table, and then throws a wobbly when he does not get it. Thank God he's not a minister.

Amen to that.

Dave should give Lord Ashcroft a job.

How about Ambassor to The Islamic State?

JEO

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Patents are not a monopoly right, they are a right to exclude; ie, the right to prevent unauthorised use of the patented invention. It's a very different thing. There are 27,000 US patents covering cures for the common cold currently in force.

It's a monopoly right to produce the patented invention. No one else is allowed to make it, and no one is allowed to buy it from anyone else but you. How is that not a monopoly right?

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The other aspect to this story.

Neither Mike or I have done a single thread on the Lib Dem conference.

8 middle-aged white blokes in a room. Pffft.....

Sounds like a Freemasons meeting.

Wonder what the initiation ceremony is like.

Richard_Nabavi

On a more substantive matter, this is a very interesting article on the EU renegotiation and on tactics of the Out campaign:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/will-david-cameron-deliver-associate-membership-of-the-eu-for-britain/

Apologies if it's already been noted.

SouthamObserver

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Patents are not a monopoly right, they are a right to exclude; ie, the right to prevent unauthorised use of the patented invention. It's a very different thing. There are 27,000 US patents covering cures for the common cold currently in force.

It's a monopoly right to produce the patented invention. No one else is allowed to make it, and no one is allowed to buy it from anyone else but you. How is that not a monopoly right?

It's not a monopoly over a solution is what I mean. So when you get a patent for a drug designed to cure the common cold you do not get the monopoly on cures for the common cold.

What is being granted is the right to exclude. It is then up to you to decide how you use that right. You can use it to create a monopoly if you choose and if the invention is strong enough, or you can use it in other ways. A lot of patent owners produce very little. See ARM, for example.

JEO

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Patents are not a monopoly right, they are a right to exclude; ie, the right to prevent unauthorised use of the patented invention. It's a very different thing. There are 27,000 US patents covering cures for the common cold currently in force.

It's a monopoly right to produce the patented invention. No one else is allowed to make it, and no one is allowed to buy it from anyone else but you. How is that not a monopoly right?

It's not a monopoly over a solution is what I mean. So when you get a patent for a drug designed to cure the common cold you do not get the monopoly on cures for the common cold.

What is being granted is the right to exclude. It is then up to you to decide how you use that right. You can use it to create a monopoly if you choose and if the invention is strong enough, or you can use it in other ways. A lot of patent owners produce very little. See ARM, for example.

I agree that it's not a monopoly over a solution. But that's like saying London's black cabs don't have a legal monopoly because there are other ways of getting from A to B. A patent grants a monopoly on a specific product. We do that because it encourages research, but I don't really see what benefit society has for that product monopoly for more than twenty years.

Scrapheap_as_was

Yawn of a thread except:

1. This image damage has massive implications for the 2015 General Election.

oh.

2. It has serious implications for DC being re-elected as PM in 2020.

oh.

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Yawn of a thread except:

1. This image damage has massive implications for the 2015 General Election.

oh.

2. It has serious implications for DC being re-elected as PM in 2020.

oh.

Can you do me a favour. Stick some money on Carlisle beating Liverpool tonight and I'll do the same on Arsenal beating Spurs

SouthamObserver

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Patents are not a monopoly right, they are a right to exclude; ie, the right to prevent unauthorised use of the patented invention. It's a very different thing. There are 27,000 US patents covering cures for the common cold currently in force.

It's a monopoly right to produce the patented invention. No one else is allowed to make it, and no one is allowed to buy it from anyone else but you. How is that not a monopoly right?

It's not a monopoly over a solution is what I mean. So when you get a patent for a drug designed to cure the common cold you do not get the monopoly on cures for the common cold.

What is being granted is the right to exclude. It is then up to you to decide how you use that right. You can use it to create a monopoly if you choose and if the invention is strong enough, or you can use it in other ways. A lot of patent owners produce very little. See ARM, for example.

I agree that it's not a monopoly over a solution. But that's like saying London's black cabs don't have a legal monopoly because there are other ways of getting from A to B. A patent grants a monopoly on a specific product.

London black cabs do not have a legal monopoly. They are one solution.

flightpath01

Once you respond to one accusation you then fall into responding to every one of them - and when they are clearly part of a character assassination plot then you will be bouncing up and down all week. Cameron did comment in a speech that l think - it's not as if he totally ignored it. The response was qute apposite as well - 'stabbed in the back' - as well as typically a bit more humorous than McBride is even on a good day.

CD13

Mr Dancer,

"Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary voted against the mandatory quota scheme."

Interesting. I remember that sort of thing being discounted when we voted IN in 1975. What bit of "Common Market" included forced acceptance of migrants?

JEO

Richard_Nabavi,

It would be laughable if we were sold an "associate member" status that is virtually identical from what we have now. You'd have to be top level spin man to sell that with a straight face!

Also, a "protocol to allow a debate on [the every closer union] clause for associate members in future treaty negotiations" sounds even more ridiculous. It's a promise to consider changing something symbolic at some unspecified point in the future!

I'm hoping Farage is wrong in all this.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. CD13, it's about Lisbon, Brown reneging on Labour's promised referendum, and turning up late to throw away vetoes in favour of QMV.

On Schengen and the euro, the UK has been spot on.

chestnut

The problem with making allegations that can't be backed up with evidence is that they begin to like look smears. Once they tip into that area, it's the accuser who looks bad.

Cyclefree

"McBride, of course, worked for Gordon Brown and had a lot of experience of situations like this. "

This would be the Damian McBride who was behind the smears against Cameron's wife and child and Osborne's wife. That Damian McBride, yes?

malcolmg

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

A strong denial would immediately lead to the demand of a libel action. Which is lose-lose for Cameron.

Also, McBride's advice may not necessarily be absolutely bloody brilliant, or in Cameron's best interest. Although by raising this question he has made another headline for the story and tried to raise a question mark over it.

Morning MD, apologies for the rubbish tip last night.

JEO

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

JEO said:

Beverley_C said:

JEO said:

This hedge fund manager who upped the price of AIDS drugs is a pretty disgusting story

I agree. It reminds me of the stories of US companies that tried to patent business methods to bankrupt their competitors. One lot even tried to patent putting milk on breakfast cereal so it could licence breakfast to eateries, hotels and restaurants.

Besides, how come a 70 year old drug is still in patent? My understanding is it was developed in the 1940s and, like many drugs, they found other uses for it.

The idea of patents lasting 70 years is quite ridiculous. The purpose of the patent system is that we grant a legal monopoly on something to encourage research. But who makes research decisions on profits earned 70 years hence? I think patent terms should be cut drastically.

Patents are not a monopoly right, they are a right to exclude; ie, the right to prevent unauthorised use of the patented invention. It's a very different thing. There are 27,000 US patents covering cures for the common cold currently in force.

It's a monopoly right to produce the patented invention. No one else is allowed to make it, and no one is allowed to buy it from anyone else but you. How is that not a monopoly right?

It's not a monopoly over a solution is what I mean. So when you get a patent for a drug designed to cure the common cold you do not get the monopoly on cures for the common cold.

What is being granted is the right to exclude. It is then up to you to decide how you use that right. You can use it to create a monopoly if you choose and if the invention is strong enough, or you can use it in other ways. A lot of patent owners produce very little. See ARM, for example.

I agree that it's not a monopoly over a solution. But that's like saying London's black cabs don't have a legal monopoly because there are other ways of getting from A to B. A patent grants a monopoly on a specific product.

London black cabs do not have a legal monopoly. They are one solution.

Monopolies are not about "solutions", they are about products and services. If I had the exclusive right to sell sugar, I would have a legal monopoly even though there are other solutions to sweeten food, such as honey or artificial sweeteners.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. G, it's the nature of bets to be hit and miss. Don't worry about it (I've offered more losing tips than I've followed this year ).

SouthamObserver

flightpath01 said:

Once you respond to one accusation you then fall into responding to every one of them - and when they are clearly part of a character assassination plot then you will be bouncing up and down all week. Cameron did comment in a speech that l think - it's not as if he totally ignored it. The response was qute apposite as well - 'stabbed in the back' - as well as typically a bit more humorous than McBride is even on a good day.

The key point is that in the last six years social media has exploded. McBride never had to deal with Twitter and the rest. In the same way, previous regimes did not have to deal with the Internet or the 24 hour news cycle.

Scrapheap_as_was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Yawn of a thread except:

1. This image damage has massive implications for the 2015 General Election.

oh.

2. It has serious implications for DC being re-elected as PM in 2020.

oh.

Can you do me a favour. Stick some money on Carlisle beating Liverpool tonight and I'll do the same on Arsenal beating Spurs

Surely it's a heinz on Carlisle & Gooners tonight, City & Villa at the weekend then Monaco & Sion next?

watford30

Cyclefree said:

"McBride, of course, worked for Gordon Brown and had a lot of experience of situations like this. "

This would be the Damian McBride who was behind the smears against Cameron's wife and child and Osborne's wife. That Damian McBride, yes?

Perhaps the thread header should have mentioned McBride's shaming and resignation. It helps to give a measure of the man, his moral code, and thought processes.

JEO

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. CD13, it's about Lisbon, Brown reneging on Labour's promised referendum, and turning up late to throw away vetoes in favour of QMV.

On Schengen and the euro, the UK has been spot on.

And immigration policy, which is separate from Schengen. That's the bit where central European nations are having their non-EU immigration dictated by Germany against their will.

The three best bits of our EU policy over the last few decades are all opt-outs.

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, more important than a disgraced spin doctor's utterances is today's Scotland Vs Japan rugby match. Will the Brave Blossoms continue their superb form? Will Scotland potentially put themselves in position to top the group?

If Japan win, they could win the group themselves. It could be a cracker.

Also today is Australia Vs Fiji, and the less competitive France Vs Romania.

This is the Scottish rugby team you're talking about. Their last two great performances were in 2000 and 1990 when they upped their game to deny L'Angleterre the five nations.

We're talking about a side that regularly puts up the most embarrassingly inept performance against any Italian side since the Battle of Zama

Hey, we had a great performance in 2010 to smash Ireland in Dublin.

Ok. Three decent performances in twenty five years

And when we beat Australia Home and Away in 2009 & 2012 which is more than Wales have achieved in the last 7 years.