Reaction from ConHome fanbois and gals to the Big Speech:
"If there is a massive meteorite impact that wipes out pretty much all the rest of it I guess this might actually be delivered on"
"Rule by decree, COVID terror, ever higher taxes, mass unemployment, unsustainable and ruinous green politics, punishment lockdowns. They are all here for the duration. There is no end"
"Johnson could supply enough hot air to power a continent. The truth is that many people have given up listening to Johnson"
"So many hostages to fortune in Johnson's bluster. Why does anyone still believe his increasingly demented fantasies?"
"As long as we are governed by these fools, I fear you may be correct in your assessment"
"Most of what Johnson said struck me as overblown fantasy"
"Question is who is going to deliver next year’s speech?"
Imagine knowing so little about politics as to believe that the posters on ConHome are actual Conservatives, rather than the Kippers and BXPers they in fact are...
..who are supposed to form Bozo's core, as against the proper conservatives who are aghast at what our government has become.
Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.
Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.
Have you got any evidence for this conspiracy theory nonsense?
And are you aware that blackouts and brownouts can occur without smart meters?
What happens when the wind stops blowing?
You rely upon backups or storage or interconnectors.
Oh Philip, do stop talking about things that you have absolutely zero knowledge of!
That is exactly what the UK is doing already. 🙄
But government policy is supposed to wean us off gas and French imports. Energy independence is the stated goal and yet we're talking about a huge investment in an energy source that doesn't do that. As I said it's complete bullshit.
If we can reliably export wind most of the time and import only when its needed then that would be a good thing would it not?
Export to who? It's not like oil or gas which can be stuck on a giant container ship and shipped all across the globe. We can sell energy to via an interconnect to France, Ireland and Belgium. There isn't a huge market for our energy as both France and Belgium are already net exporters of energy and Ireland is a tiny market.
I thought we were investing in interconnectors to Scandinavia and the Netherlands too?
Plus as I said before if we overinvest in bountiful clean, cheap energy then it should be possible to incentivise businesses that are energy-intensive but don't need to be 24/7 to operate when there is a surplus of energy and to shutdown when there is a shortage. With smart metres and electric vehicles at home there is the capability to do similar there too so people can charge their cars cheaper when there is a surplus.
Those are also tiny markets with surpluses. We are the next energy consumer in the region and the largest market except Germany. Also, being able to sell into a market is great, but we need to be able to cycle up when they need it rather than be able to sell it when we can offer it. They may not need the energy. Investing in a system that doesn't have the capability to cycle up and down on demand as the primary source is a horrible idea. Basing an export market on that is an even worse idea, what if we've sold energy futures to Germany and the wind isn't blowing?
Energy intensive business such as base metal production and manufacturing in general isn't a process that can simply be turned off, it needs a constant supply of reliable energy (which is why nuclear is still in the game). If we're moving to offshore wind as the primary generation method we will have to decide whether we will be a manufacturer of heavy goods in this country.
I was actually thinking of hydrogen production as an energy intensive business, plus hydrogen will soon be able to be used as secondary generation so it becomes its own backup.
If we have bountiful cheap energy in this country then we will be able to expand not contract as a manufacturer of heavy goods.
Yes. The plan would be to have a massive surplus of wind energy to turn into hydrogen. Then you can use the hydrogen for trains, for synthetic jet fuel, all sorts of other things.
If you have that large a surplus of wind energy then you probably don't need often to turn any of it back to electricity, you just pause the hydrogen production when the wind energy is low.
But that envisages ramping up wind energy production by a factor of ten, at least - not Johnson's modest ambition to double it only to satisfy household demand.
And, it's a great benefit to foreign companies like Vestas, but there were too many people standing in the way of progress in earlier decades for British industry to benefit. Johnson's ambition may not be high enough for us to gain a lead with hydrogen. Other European countries are moving quickly.
You're talking about a complete step change or revolution in power generation in the UK. Boris isn't talking about that, if he was then I'd at least understand the policy. You lot are all projecting an idealised version of offshore wind and hydrogen production through electrolysis with masses of excess energy. What we're going to get will be nothing like that, it will be a mush of strategies and by the time we realise it will lead to rolling blackouts it will be too late.
Let's be realistic about what will actually happen, not what we think should happen. One thing that everyone should have learned in this crisis is that the British state is bereft of any kind of creative thinking and problem solving ability, the machinery of government is simply incapable of thinking beyond tomorrow's headlines.
We have had a ten-fold increase increase in our wind power in the past decade and that increase is only escalating not falling. It is realistic to believe it will happen.
Starting from a small base. It's not the same as doing it today and there's nothing in government policy about using excess energy for hydrogen production by electrolysis. This is all nothing more than projection. The reality of this policy is intermittent power, more imports and burning more gas.
We will see, I certainly believe that plans are there for excess energy there have been multiple reports about that plus besides even if there weren't such plans the market would develop them once there is an abundance of energy.
Continuing to increase wind just at the rate we are doing will see us reach truly impressive levels in a few years, let alone increasing investments and doing it faster.
Plus if gas is a backup until there's alternative backups I have no qualms with that. Better than a blackout but it won't be needed forever.
With today's polls factored in, 538 now have the average Biden polling lead up to 8.8%, the forecast national polling lead on election day now 7.5%, and Trump's chances down to their lowest yet at 17%.
Yep. And Biden EC supremacy can now be sold at 78. I bought at 28 for quite a lot and it's VERY tempting to close. My wussy side is telling me to. Hush, Mr Wuss, hush now.
Thaat polling average does of course derive from a mix of older and newer polls. As such I don't think that it may fully factor in Biden's post debate and post hospitalisation polling bounce, in so far as older polling is still in the mix.
Does look baked in now. Still, 6/10 is not 3/11.
General question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
Reaction from ConHome fanbois and gals to the Big Speech:
"If there is a massive meteorite impact that wipes out pretty much all the rest of it I guess this might actually be delivered on"
"Rule by decree, COVID terror, ever higher taxes, mass unemployment, unsustainable and ruinous green politics, punishment lockdowns. They are all here for the duration. There is no end"
"Johnson could supply enough hot air to power a continent. The truth is that many people have given up listening to Johnson"
"So many hostages to fortune in Johnson's bluster. Why does anyone still believe his increasingly demented fantasies?"
"As long as we are governed by these fools, I fear you may be correct in your assessment"
"Most of what Johnson said struck me as overblown fantasy"
"Question is who is going to deliver next year’s speech?"
Imagine knowing so little about politics as to believe that the posters on ConHome are actual Conservatives, rather than the Kippers and BXPers they in fact are...
All mailing lists have their quirks. I've just had one from Boris saying he's noticed that I've not joined the Conservatives yet, remember that the Tories have delivered Brexit like they promised, wouldn't I like to join the winning team? Possibly not, thank you.
It's interesting to be on both major party mailing lists (it's no doubt because I've been an NGO delegate at both). The style is often very similar, but the requests for contributions are hugely different - the Tories suggest £10/£20/£50/£100 and Labour suggests £1/2/5/10. Since supporters are probably from a not dissimilar income background, I assume this reflects a deliberate Tory attempt to focus on wealthier donors and a Labour attempt to have a broad base.
The hydrogen revolution dovetails with Britain’s colossal gamble on offshore wind, heading for 75 GW by mid-century if the Committee on Climate Change gets its way. The logical endgame is the construction of giant wind farms in the shallow waters of the North Sea - where flow conditions are superb - to generate power for exclusive use in hydrogen production. This would whittle down the cost.
Note that if you had 10 million electric cars on the road, you'd have perhaps 500GWh potential storage just there.
Would people want to degrade their lithium batteries in their personal cars to support the grid?
I think the idea is that people would be able to plug their cars in at home and have an ability to recharge cheaply when supply is high, unless they are desperate to recharge in which case they'd pay more to do so at peak.
That would naturally smooth out supply and demand.
The power companies having been muttering about using plugged in cars as storage. Tesla, among others, have stated that they will never add the capability to draw power from the batter via the charger....
Did you read the article? - the board changes were debunked. And Musk's statement was designed to push back on it happening - the utilities in the US have done some extraordinary stuff vs their tame legislators. Such as making going off grid illegal in some areas...
Yes. The reason I posted it was to make clear it's inaccurate to say that Tesla "will never add the capability to draw power from the batter via the charger". As Musk made clear on battery day, they could offer the capability via software update. Tesla are understandably reluctant to do so, given their Powerwall business, I guess.
As the video from a guy actually analysing the power boards from the latests Teslas pointed out - quite literally, the circuitry isn't there. They are building the cars to be incapable of it. Unless Edison wins after all, and the grid reverts to DC.....
There are videos around too, but I wouldn't advise watching them.
When I asked for evidence, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean propaganda and lies put out by an anti abortion group, I meant independent facts. You might as well just quote Trump as reliable evidence. Here are just a few comments about what they have produced from reliable sources: Tampering with videos, twisting the facts, campaign of misinformation.
You don't believe videos you can watch with your own eyes because you don't like the website they are hosted on? That's one way of ignoring evidence I suppose.
Well there were a few leaps in assumptions about me:
a) I did not say I didn't believe the videos. I have never seen them and have no desire to see them as I am sure they are very distressing. I was quoting reputable sources which said they were tampered with.
b) I don't necessarily dislike the web sites as I don't know about them, but you are probably right as I don't like propaganda.
c) I would rather take evidence from reputable sources.
Just for the record I think abortion is a terrible thing, that must be appallingly distressing for all involved. I also believe there is a conflict between the interests of the unborn baby, father and mother. But I am very reluctantly however on the side of the law as it is and that it is the mothers decision.
Re the videos that I have no intention of watching, I am sure they are incredibly distressing even in an unedited format.
How are the videos tampered with? Genuine question.
The videos in that link are basically just people at planned parenthood talking and describing their methods regarding partial-birth abortions.
I don't believe much unquestionably these days, but I believe what I can see with my own eyes, regardless of whether a reputable source tells me afterwards that I didn't actually see it.
You really aren't seriously suggesting that tampering with a video is unheard of or difficult are you?
Before today I knew nothing about either of these organisations but it took me just a few minutes to find out the info from sources that did not have an axe to grind on the issue.
The hydrogen revolution dovetails with Britain’s colossal gamble on offshore wind, heading for 75 GW by mid-century if the Committee on Climate Change gets its way. The logical endgame is the construction of giant wind farms in the shallow waters of the North Sea - where flow conditions are superb - to generate power for exclusive use in hydrogen production. This would whittle down the cost.
Note that if you had 10 million electric cars on the road, you'd have perhaps 500GWh potential storage just there.
Unless their owners want the option to use them, at short notice, as cars.
But that's the thing about car usage - it's predictable. Even more so when everyone's driving cars with real time remote data logging.
Predictable in the aggregate, and *most* of the time individually. But it takes away a lot of the point of having your own car when it isn't available for unforeseen evs.
I refer you to my post above. You wouldn't discharge the whole battery, just the top 20% once the vehicle is charged up.
Thanks, I had missed that.
My impression at the moment is that they don't go far enough on a charge to interest me anyway, and 80% of not far enough is even less appetising. Might think differently if I still lived in London and drove mainly within it.
I'd get one but my battered old Merc just keeps on going. It simply will not give up the ghost and I am incapable of scrapping it. It's my oldest possession and we've been through so much together.
Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.
Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.
Have you got any evidence for this conspiracy theory nonsense?
And are you aware that blackouts and brownouts can occur without smart meters?
What happens when the wind stops blowing?
You rely upon backups or storage or interconnectors.
Oh Philip, do stop talking about things that you have absolutely zero knowledge of!
That is exactly what the UK is doing already. 🙄
But government policy is supposed to wean us off gas and French imports. Energy independence is the stated goal and yet we're talking about a huge investment in an energy source that doesn't do that. As I said it's complete bullshit.
If we can reliably export wind most of the time and import only when its needed then that would be a good thing would it not?
Export to who? It's not like oil or gas which can be stuck on a giant container ship and shipped all across the globe. We can sell energy to via an interconnect to France, Ireland and Belgium. There isn't a huge market for our energy as both France and Belgium are already net exporters of energy and Ireland is a tiny market.
I thought we were investing in interconnectors to Scandinavia and the Netherlands too?
Plus as I said before if we overinvest in bountiful clean, cheap energy then it should be possible to incentivise businesses that are energy-intensive but don't need to be 24/7 to operate when there is a surplus of energy and to shutdown when there is a shortage. With smart metres and electric vehicles at home there is the capability to do similar there too so people can charge their cars cheaper when there is a surplus.
Those are also tiny markets with surpluses. We are the next energy consumer in the region and the largest market except Germany. Also, being able to sell into a market is great, but we need to be able to cycle up when they need it rather than be able to sell it when we can offer it. They may not need the energy. Investing in a system that doesn't have the capability to cycle up and down on demand as the primary source is a horrible idea. Basing an export market on that is an even worse idea, what if we've sold energy futures to Germany and the wind isn't blowing?
Energy intensive business such as base metal production and manufacturing in general isn't a process that can simply be turned off, it needs a constant supply of reliable energy (which is why nuclear is still in the game). If we're moving to offshore wind as the primary generation method we will have to decide whether we will be a manufacturer of heavy goods in this country.
I was actually thinking of hydrogen production as an energy intensive business, plus hydrogen will soon be able to be used as secondary generation so it becomes its own backup.
If we have bountiful cheap energy in this country then we will be able to expand not contract as a manufacturer of heavy goods.
Yes. The plan would be to have a massive surplus of wind energy to turn into hydrogen. Then you can use the hydrogen for trains, for synthetic jet fuel, all sorts of other things.
If you have that large a surplus of wind energy then you probably don't need often to turn any of it back to electricity, you just pause the hydrogen production when the wind energy is low.
But that envisages ramping up wind energy production by a factor of ten, at least - not Johnson's modest ambition to double it only to satisfy household demand.
And, it's a great benefit to foreign companies like Vestas, but there were too many people standing in the way of progress in earlier decades for British industry to benefit. Johnson's ambition may not be high enough for us to gain a lead with hydrogen. Other European countries are moving quickly.
You're talking about a complete step change or revolution in power generation in the UK. Boris isn't talking about that, if he was then I'd at least understand the policy. You lot are all projecting an idealised version of offshore wind and hydrogen production through electrolysis with masses of excess energy. What we're going to get will be nothing like that, it will be a mush of strategies and by the time we realise it will lead to rolling blackouts it will be too late.
Let's be realistic about what will actually happen, not what we think should happen. One thing that everyone should have learned in this crisis is that the British state is bereft of any kind of creative thinking and problem solving ability, the machinery of government is simply incapable of thinking beyond tomorrow's headlines.
Agreed.
Though I don't think that with the right leadership we'd be incapable of such planning. (In the same way that our £10bn testing project might have turned out better had Hunt been SoS rather than Hancock.)
My plan for Sunday is to write a piece reminding us all that in 2016 the state polling was a load of bobbins whilst the national polling wasn't that bad.
If you had to trust one rather the other you'd go for National, but it would be nice if they concurred for once.
Today's polling doesn't suggest much of a sympathy vote for the GoP.
I simply cannot understand why Trump took the approach he did –– the only possible positive would have been a sympathy vote, but he kinda ruined all that when he told oldies not to be scared of covid and incarcerated his own security team in a hermetically sealed cage on wheels for a self-aggrandising drive by.
I’m sure over the last few days you’ve noticed my team’s emails asking you to join our Party:
In response thousands of Conservatives have united and become members, because they know we need to come together to Build Back Better!
But we noticed you’ve chosen not to join our Party yet. So Barnesian, I’m taking this opportunity to ask you one last time to become a member:
Join Today Because it’s fallen on the Conservative Party to transform our country fundamentally and permanently for the better. And I need your help to do that.
We cannot shy away from the fact that our national recovery will be difficult.
But we can’t just seek to make up the ground that we’ve lost since March. We’ve got to set our sights higher.
Join me today and help me seize this opportunity to Build Back Better
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year Become an under 26 member – £5 a year You’ll be joining the Party which delivers on its promises.
In the election we promised to recruit 20,000 more police officers, we've already recruited 4,300.
We promised to deliver 50,000 more nurses and 14,000 are already in place.
We promised to get Brexit done and we left the EU on the 31st of January this year.
Barnesian, together we will continue to deliver for the British people, ensuring our plan to transform this country will not be blown off course.
I look forward to having you on our team.
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
Reaction from ConHome fanbois and gals to the Big Speech:
"If there is a massive meteorite impact that wipes out pretty much all the rest of it I guess this might actually be delivered on"
"Rule by decree, COVID terror, ever higher taxes, mass unemployment, unsustainable and ruinous green politics, punishment lockdowns. They are all here for the duration. There is no end"
"Johnson could supply enough hot air to power a continent. The truth is that many people have given up listening to Johnson"
"So many hostages to fortune in Johnson's bluster. Why does anyone still believe his increasingly demented fantasies?"
"As long as we are governed by these fools, I fear you may be correct in your assessment"
"Most of what Johnson said struck me as overblown fantasy"
"Question is who is going to deliver next year’s speech?"
Imagine knowing so little about politics as to believe that the posters on ConHome are actual Conservatives, rather than the Kippers and BXPers they in fact are...
Ironic that Kippers are now calling out fools, hot air, and demented and overblown fantasies.
There are videos around too, but I wouldn't advise watching them.
When I asked for evidence, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean propaganda and lies put out by an anti abortion group, I meant independent facts. You might as well just quote Trump as reliable evidence. Here are just a few comments about what they have produced from reliable sources: Tampering with videos, twisting the facts, campaign of misinformation.
You don't believe videos you can watch with your own eyes because you don't like the website they are hosted on? That's one way of ignoring evidence I suppose.
Well there were a few leaps in assumptions about me:
a) I did not say I didn't believe the videos. I have never seen them and have no desire to see them as I am sure they are very distressing. I was quoting reputable sources which said they were tampered with.
b) I don't necessarily dislike the web sites as I don't know about them, but you are probably right as I don't like propaganda.
c) I would rather take evidence from reputable sources.
Just for the record I think abortion is a terrible thing, that must be appallingly distressing for all involved. I also believe there is a conflict between the interests of the unborn baby, father and mother. But I am very reluctantly however on the side of the law as it is and that it is the mothers decision.
Re the videos that I have no intention of watching, I am sure they are incredibly distressing even in an unedited format.
How are the videos tampered with? Genuine question.
The videos in that link are basically just people at planned parenthood talking and describing their methods regarding partial-birth abortions.
I don't believe much unquestionably these days, but I believe what I can see with my own eyes, regardless of whether a reputable source tells me afterwards that I didn't actually see it.
You really aren't seriously suggesting that tampering with a video is unheard of or difficult are you?
Before today I knew nothing about either of these organisations but it took me just a few minutes to find out the info from sources that did not have an axe to grind on the issue.
No I'm asking how those videos were tampered with. Which parts are not genuine causing you to completely disregard them?
With today's polls factored in, 538 now have the average Biden polling lead up to 8.8%, the forecast national polling lead on election day now 7.5%, and Trump's chances down to their lowest yet at 17%.
Yep. And Biden EC supremacy can now be sold at 78. I bought at 28 for quite a lot and it's VERY tempting to close. My wussy side is telling me to. Hush, Mr Wuss, hush now.
Thaat polling average does of course derive from a mix of older and newer polls. As such I don't think that it may fully factor in Biden's post debate and post hospitalisation polling bounce, in so far as older polling is still in the mix.
Does look baked in now. Still, 6/10 is not 3/11.
General question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
Can't do any better than use 538s suggestion. That reckons 338/200 to Biden so a supremacy of 138. I'd round that down to 100 for MoE which is still 14 points above Biden's buy price of 86.
Personally I bought in much lower than that (hat-tip Richard Nabavi) but I'd be happy to buy in again at 86 if Sporting would let me but for some reason the bastards limit strictly the extent to which they're prepared to supplement my pension.
Subject to all the usual caveats (spread betting is reisky etc) I'd suggest you calculate the maximum loss you could bear without becoming suicidal and figure out what stake would lose you that if you finished 200 points down. Then buy for that stake. (E.g. if you can bear to lose £1,000 your stake should be £5 per point.)
I know the risks of spread betting and have been burned myself from time to time, but I think the downside risks here are low because of the extreme improbability of a Trump landslide. It's for that reason I have maxed out on this market.
There are videos around too, but I wouldn't advise watching them.
When I asked for evidence, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean propaganda and lies put out by an anti abortion group, I meant independent facts. You might as well just quote Trump as reliable evidence. Here are just a few comments about what they have produced from reliable sources: Tampering with videos, twisting the facts, campaign of misinformation.
You don't believe videos you can watch with your own eyes because you don't like the website they are hosted on? That's one way of ignoring evidence I suppose.
Well there were a few leaps in assumptions about me:
a) I did not say I didn't believe the videos. I have never seen them and have no desire to see them as I am sure they are very distressing. I was quoting reputable sources which said they were tampered with.
b) I don't necessarily dislike the web sites as I don't know about them, but you are probably right as I don't like propaganda.
c) I would rather take evidence from reputable sources.
Just for the record I think abortion is a terrible thing, that must be appallingly distressing for all involved. I also believe there is a conflict between the interests of the unborn baby, father and mother. But I am very reluctantly however on the side of the law as it is and that it is the mothers decision.
Re the videos that I have no intention of watching, I am sure they are incredibly distressing even in an unedited format.
How are the videos tampered with? Genuine question.
The videos in that link are basically just people at planned parenthood talking and describing their methods regarding partial-birth abortions.
I don't believe much unquestionably these days, but I believe what I can see with my own eyes, regardless of whether a reputable source tells me afterwards that I didn't actually see it.
You really aren't seriously suggesting that tampering with a video is unheard of or difficult are you?
Before today I knew nothing about either of these organisations but it took me just a few minutes to find out the info from sources that did not have an axe to grind on the issue.
No I'm asking how those videos were tampered with. Which parts are not genuine causing you to completely disregard them?
a) I haven't looked at them
b) I have no intention of looking at them
c) If I did look at them and they have done a half decent job I would not know what videos have been edited and where
d) Do your own research. It isn't difficult to find the evidence (unless you are blinkered)
Here is a hint as to how reliable they are. They won the prestigious title of 'Misinformer of the year 2015', although in fairness I would credit that source as equally unreliable.
With today's polls factored in, 538 now have the average Biden polling lead up to 8.8%, the forecast national polling lead on election day now 7.5%, and Trump's chances down to their lowest yet at 17%.
Yep. And Biden EC supremacy can now be sold at 78. I bought at 28 for quite a lot and it's VERY tempting to close. My wussy side is telling me to. Hush, Mr Wuss, hush now.
Thaat polling average does of course derive from a mix of older and newer polls. As such I don't think that it may fully factor in Biden's post debate and post hospitalisation polling bounce, in so far as older polling is still in the mix.
Does look baked in now. Still, 6/10 is not 3/11.
General question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
Can't do any better than use 538s suggestion. That reckons 338/200 to Biden so a supremacy of 138. I'd round that down to 100 for MoE which is still 14 points above Biden's buy price of 86.
Personally I bought in much lower than that (hat-tip Richard Nabavi) but I'd be happy to buy in again at 86 if Sporting would let me but for some reason the bastards limit strictly the extent to which they're prepared to supplement my pension.
Subject to all the usual caveats (spread betting is reisky etc) I'd suggest you calculate the maximum loss you could bear without becoming suicidal and figure out what stake would lose you that if you finished 200 points down. Then buy for that stake. (E.g. if you can bear to lose £1,000 your stake should be £5 per point.)
I know the risks of spread betting and have been burned myself from time to time, but I think the downside risks here are low because of the extreme improbability of a Trump landslide. It's for that reason I have maxed out on this market.
Hope that helps. Good luck.
It makes me almost a non-serious spread bettor as so far I've made the grand sum of £13.50 spread betting on Biden's EC votes. I was late to read Mike S's tip on this but at least it's risen since the price was 298.
As you bet with Sporting Index more than me, would you say that they limit your stakes to limit their own liability - fair enough, a firm wants to continue in business and needs to balance its book - or because they resent punters winning and know that you do that a lot?
UK fixed-odds bookmakers seem to be in the latter category ... and Betfair if it breaks its own terms and conditions just because of its mood that day. I'm in the process of closing all my remaining a.c.s with fixed-odds bookies because of the blatant 'heads we win, tails you lose' attitude. (I never went near enough Betfair to actually open an a.c. and when they merged with PP their terms became even greedier).
I'll be left with just one a.c with Smarkets and a 2nd with Sporting Index ... the latter very nicely let me bet on credit:)
There are videos around too, but I wouldn't advise watching them.
When I asked for evidence, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean propaganda and lies put out by an anti abortion group, I meant independent facts. You might as well just quote Trump as reliable evidence. Here are just a few comments about what they have produced from reliable sources: Tampering with videos, twisting the facts, campaign of misinformation.
You don't believe videos you can watch with your own eyes because you don't like the website they are hosted on? That's one way of ignoring evidence I suppose.
Well there were a few leaps in assumptions about me:
a) I did not say I didn't believe the videos. I have never seen them and have no desire to see them as I am sure they are very distressing. I was quoting reputable sources which said they were tampered with.
b) I don't necessarily dislike the web sites as I don't know about them, but you are probably right as I don't like propaganda.
c) I would rather take evidence from reputable sources.
Just for the record I think abortion is a terrible thing, that must be appallingly distressing for all involved. I also believe there is a conflict between the interests of the unborn baby, father and mother. But I am very reluctantly however on the side of the law as it is and that it is the mothers decision.
Re the videos that I have no intention of watching, I am sure they are incredibly distressing even in an unedited format.
How are the videos tampered with? Genuine question.
The videos in that link are basically just people at planned parenthood talking and describing their methods regarding partial-birth abortions.
I don't believe much unquestionably these days, but I believe what I can see with my own eyes, regardless of whether a reputable source tells me afterwards that I didn't actually see it.
You really aren't seriously suggesting that tampering with a video is unheard of or difficult are you?
Before today I knew nothing about either of these organisations but it took me just a few minutes to find out the info from sources that did not have an axe to grind on the issue.
No I'm asking how those videos were tampered with. Which parts are not genuine causing you to completely disregard them?
a) I haven't looked at them
b) I have no intention of looking at them
c) If I did look at them and they have done a half decent job I would not know what videos have been edited and where
d) Do your own research. It isn't difficult to find the evidence (unless you are blinkered)
Here is a hint as to how reliable they are. They won the prestigious title of 'Misinformer of the year 2015', although in fairness I would credit that source as equally unreliable.
There are videos around too, but I wouldn't advise watching them.
When I asked for evidence, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean propaganda and lies put out by an anti abortion group, I meant independent facts. You might as well just quote Trump as reliable evidence. Here are just a few comments about what they have produced from reliable sources: Tampering with videos, twisting the facts, campaign of misinformation.
You don't believe videos you can watch with your own eyes because you don't like the website they are hosted on? That's one way of ignoring evidence I suppose.
Well there were a few leaps in assumptions about me:
a) I did not say I didn't believe the videos. I have never seen them and have no desire to see them as I am sure they are very distressing. I was quoting reputable sources which said they were tampered with.
b) I don't necessarily dislike the web sites as I don't know about them, but you are probably right as I don't like propaganda.
c) I would rather take evidence from reputable sources.
Just for the record I think abortion is a terrible thing, that must be appallingly distressing for all involved. I also believe there is a conflict between the interests of the unborn baby, father and mother. But I am very reluctantly however on the side of the law as it is and that it is the mothers decision.
Re the videos that I have no intention of watching, I am sure they are incredibly distressing even in an unedited format.
How are the videos tampered with? Genuine question.
The videos in that link are basically just people at planned parenthood talking and describing their methods regarding partial-birth abortions.
I don't believe much unquestionably these days, but I believe what I can see with my own eyes, regardless of whether a reputable source tells me afterwards that I didn't actually see it.
You really aren't seriously suggesting that tampering with a video is unheard of or difficult are you?
Before today I knew nothing about either of these organisations but it took me just a few minutes to find out the info from sources that did not have an axe to grind on the issue.
No I'm asking how those videos were tampered with. Which parts are not genuine causing you to completely disregard them?
a) I haven't looked at them
b) I have no intention of looking at them
c) If I did look at them and they have done a half decent job I would not know what videos have been edited and where
d) Do your own research. It isn't difficult to find the evidence (unless you are blinkered)
Here is a hint as to how reliable they are. They won the prestigious title of 'Misinformer of the year 2015', although in fairness I would credit that source as equally unreliable.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
My favourite is the financial crash was Bill Clinton's fault for encouraging home ownership amongst the impecunious.
Bill Clinton de-regulated parts of the financial markets - in exactly the way that Bush I refused to do. This enabled the banks to play Monopoly with even more money. What could possibly go wrong?
I remember the fierce opposition from the Gingrich House at the time...
Comments
Continuing to increase wind just at the rate we are doing will see us reach truly impressive levels in a few years, let alone increasing investments and doing it faster.
Plus if gas is a backup until there's alternative backups I have no qualms with that. Better than a blackout but it won't be needed forever.
General question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
It's interesting to be on both major party mailing lists (it's no doubt because I've been an NGO delegate at both). The style is often very similar, but the requests for contributions are hugely different - the Tories suggest £10/£20/£50/£100 and Labour suggests £1/2/5/10. Since supporters are probably from a not dissimilar income background, I assume this reflects a deliberate Tory attempt to focus on wealthier donors and a Labour attempt to have a broad base.
NEW THREAD
Before today I knew nothing about either of these organisations but it took me just a few minutes to find out the info from sources that did not have an axe to grind on the issue.
Though I don't think that with the right leadership we'd be incapable of such planning. (In the same way that our £10bn testing project might have turned out better had Hunt been SoS rather than Hancock.)
Dear Barnesian
I’m sure over the last few days you’ve noticed my team’s emails asking you to join our Party:
In response thousands of Conservatives have united and become members, because they know we need to come together to Build Back Better!
But we noticed you’ve chosen not to join our Party yet. So Barnesian, I’m taking this opportunity to ask you one last time to become a member:
Join Today
Because it’s fallen on the Conservative Party to transform our country fundamentally and permanently for the better. And I need your help to do that.
We cannot shy away from the fact that our national recovery will be difficult.
But we can’t just seek to make up the ground that we’ve lost since March. We’ve got to set our sights higher.
Join me today and help me seize this opportunity to Build Back Better
Become a Member – £25 a year / £2.09 a month
Become an Armed Forces Member – £15 a year
Become an under 26 member – £5 a year
You’ll be joining the Party which delivers on its promises.
In the election we promised to recruit 20,000 more police officers, we've already recruited 4,300.
We promised to deliver 50,000 more nurses and 14,000 are already in place.
We promised to get Brexit done and we left the EU on the 31st of January this year.
Barnesian, together we will continue to deliver for the British people, ensuring our plan to transform this country will not be blown off course.
I look forward to having you on our team.
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature
Boris Johnson
Prime Minister
He sounds a bit desperate to me!
Personally I bought in much lower than that (hat-tip Richard Nabavi) but I'd be happy to buy in again at 86 if Sporting would let me but for some reason the bastards limit strictly the extent to which they're prepared to supplement my pension.
Subject to all the usual caveats (spread betting is reisky etc) I'd suggest you calculate the maximum loss you could bear without becoming suicidal and figure out what stake would lose you that if you finished 200 points down. Then buy for that stake. (E.g. if you can bear to lose £1,000 your stake should be £5 per point.)
I know the risks of spread betting and have been burned myself from time to time, but I think the downside risks here are low because of the extreme improbability of a Trump landslide. It's for that reason I have maxed out on this market.
Hope that helps. Good luck.
b) I have no intention of looking at them
c) If I did look at them and they have done a half decent job I would not know what videos have been edited and where
d) Do your own research. It isn't difficult to find the evidence (unless you are blinkered)
Here is a hint as to how reliable they are. They won the prestigious title of 'Misinformer of the year 2015', although in fairness I would credit that source as equally unreliable.
As you bet with Sporting Index more than me, would you say that they limit your stakes to limit their own liability - fair enough, a firm wants to continue in business and needs to balance its book - or because they resent punters winning and know that you do that a lot?
UK fixed-odds bookmakers seem to be in the latter category ... and Betfair if it breaks its own terms and conditions just because of its mood that day. I'm in the process of closing all my remaining a.c.s with fixed-odds bookies because of the blatant 'heads we win, tails you lose' attitude. (I never went near enough Betfair to actually open an a.c. and when they merged with PP their terms became even greedier).
I'll be left with just one a.c with Smarkets and a 2nd with Sporting Index ... the latter very nicely let me bet on credit:)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/15/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-sentenced-life
Nothing to do with Planned Parenthood though.
But Trump cultists will believe that Biden is in favour of murdering babies if their leader tells them it's true.