The government's strategy is fairly easy to understand. It is literally whack a mole. Oh how we laughed when that was used as an example but that is it.
They want to batter down the incidence and they will do this, clumsily as it turns out, by tiers, lockdowns, what-all else. When it comes down they will re-open to allow what economic activity that can exist to exist. And then they batter down again when naturally incidence rises.
So why that? Well first I think they were/are shit-scared of the virus and to start with they weren't sure what or how it would play out. What if no vaccine? Endless rises and falls. Secondly, it is the line, impossible to draw, between allowing what economic activity can take place, and avoiding the scenes we all saw in Italy six months ago when hospitals were overflowing.
However, and this is where @contrarian is a vital voice in all of this, the government has also monumentally fucked up. In communication, in redress, in targeting, and as @contrarian says, in the NHS. I have spoken with consultants who are seething at the lack of work being done in the "normal" NHS.
Where is the new capacity? Nightingale? Anything else? What about a signing on bonus of £XXXXX to nurses and doctors and related disciplines.
Plus the control. Brady is right. This is an unprecedented restriction on freedom and the country, whether because of furlough, or holding on to nurse, has acquiesced in a quite extraordinary way.
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
I put my money where my mouth is yesterday (just after pay day!) and piled a couple of thousand on (mix of similar markets on states won and EVs won). 7% return in a few days on a certainty can't be bad and will help for Xmas costs.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
There is 1,000 (or 999/1) against Kanye West if you want it. All the names from when the market opened years ago are still there, and all at 1,000 aside from Biden 1.06 and Trump 17.
It’s pretty much worth betting mortgage money on that 1.06 right now, if you can get your hands on the liquidity at good rates. (Not that I’m in that position myself).
I love the way it looks like Elon Musk talking to Chamberlain.
"Neville, Neville, don't worry about the Germans. The future is ELECTRIC. Instead of wasting it on planes and tanks, just give me a few billion in subsidies for my factory instead and the UK can have a world beating industry assembling my cars."
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
I love the way it looks like Elon Musk talking to Chamberlain.
"Neville, Neville, don't worry about the Germans. The future is ELECTRIC. Instead of wasting it on planes and tanks, just give me a few billion in subsidies for my factory instead and the UK can have a world beating industry assembling my cars."
Taps finger on side of (masked) nose.
'However can I just warn you and your successors about the dangers of paedo divers?'
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
Read up on "Just Culture" - it is specifically used in the aviation industry for accident investigations.
The government's strategy is fairly easy to understand. It is literally whack a mole. Oh how we laughed when that was used as an example but that is it.
They want to batter down the incidence and they will do this, clumsily as it turns out, by tiers, lockdowns, what-all else. When it comes down they will re-open to allow what economic activity that can exist to exist. And then they batter down again when naturally incidence rises.
So why that? Well first I think they were/are shit-scared of the virus and to start with they weren't sure what or how it would play out. What if no vaccine? Endless rises and falls. Secondly, it is the line, impossible to draw, between allowing what economic activity can take place, and avoiding the scenes we all saw in Italy six months ago when hospitals were overflowing.
However, and this is where @contrarian is a vital voice in all of this, the government has also monumentally fucked up. In communication, in redress, in targeting, and as @contrarian says, in the NHS. I have spoken with consultants who are seething at the lack of work being done in the "normal" NHS.
Where is the new capacity? Nightingale? Anything else? What about a signing on bonus of £XXXXX to nurses and doctors and related disciplines.
Plus the control. Brady is right. This is an unprecedented restriction on freedom and the country, whether because of furlough, or holding on to nurse, has acquiesced in a quite extraordinary way.
And, not least on PB.
The government's strategy is literally whack a mole? Messy, cruel and surely ineffective, no?
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
TBH I’m not quite sure Betfair expected a billion pound market, with tens of millions a day still going on it a month after the vote.
It would have been escalated to the CEO and the corporate lawyers, who are judging that the risk of calling it early is a lot higher than letting it run to the point where it’s clear beyond any doubt.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
How does he know it's correlation rather than causation?
He doesn't - causation is the number one suspect in correlation.
True. But for most of the year, the Covid heat map hasn't looked anything like the UKIP map at all. So what's special about now?
(If I had to speculate, I'd wonder about the link between Farageism and lockdown-scepticism making the most recent lockdown less effective in certain places, but that would be massive speculation. But how else does one explain Havering?)
How does he know it's correlation rather than causation?
He doesn't - causation is the number one suspect in correlation.
True. But for most of the year, the Covid heat map hasn't looked anything like the UKIP map at all. So what's special about now?
(If I had to speculate, I'd wonder about the link between Farageism and lockdown-scepticism making the most recent lockdown less effective in certain places, but that would be massive speculation. But how else does one explain Havering?)
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Again broadly agree.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.
Precedent. Precedence is who sits next to the Queen at dinner.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Again broadly agree.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.
Precedent. Precedence is who sits next to the Queen at dinner.
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
Read up on "Just Culture" - it is specifically used in the aviation industry for accident investigations.
Yes, familiar with that. The work that the aviation community has done on what they call CRM (crew resource management, or cockpit resource management) since the Teneriffe crash in 1977, is still ground-breaking today.
Aviation is like F1 - that people walk away from horrific accidents is entirely by design, and decades of continuous improvement.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.
Precedent. Precedence is who sits next to the Queen at dinner.
Aka 'not Prince Andrew if photographers are present'
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Again broadly agree.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.
Assuming there is still a link between the envelopes and the votes they once contained. If not, then Trump will be asking the courts to disqualify all of the votes on the basis of a handful of disputed signatures.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
Though Hitler was very like Stalin and he led the USSR for decades until his death.
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
Read up on "Just Culture" - it is specifically used in the aviation industry for accident investigations.
Yes, familiar with that. The the work that the aviation community has done on what they call CRM (crew resource management, or cockpit resource management) since the Teneriffe crash in 1977, is still ground-breaking today.
Aviation is like F1 - that people walk away from horrific accidents is by design, and decades of continuous improvement.
Many of the people that walk away owe their lives to design.
Many of the people that die owe their deaths to design.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
It gets better. They found drugs in his backpack but "he didn't know whose they were". So they took him to his nearby flat and found drugs there too. He also didn't know whose they were....
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Again broadly agree.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.
I'd not dignify that with the term "path to victory".
In theory, the Supreme Court could argue the US Constitution requires them to declare the reanimated corpse of George Washington President. But it's all utterly in the realms of fantasy.
To be a "path to victory" it needs some semblence of plausibility (even if it needs a lot of fairly unlikely things to come together). This is "a dragon might land on the White House lawn carrying a unicorn on its back" territory.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
Though Hitler was very like Stalin and he led the USSR for decades until his death.
He was indeed. But their motivations were very different. Stalin's was to exert total Communist Party control over the Soviet Union, first and foremost. Hitler's was to avenge 1918. He couldn't do that without War with the neighbours at some point.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.
someone is wanting 1.7 for Tyson Fury to get in top 3. There's £40 there. now there is only one spot left in the 6-person shortlist so I'm guessing they have inside knowledge it might be him. but even then I wouldnt have him odds on to make the top 3.
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Again broadly agree.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.
Assuming there is still a link between the envelopes and the votes they once contained. If not, then Trump will be asking the courts to disqualify all of the votes on the basis of a handful of disputed signatures.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.
Warwickshire is bang on the average in terms of case rates. What are they on about?
Stratford-on-Avon is a very different area to northern Warwickshire which borders Derbyshire.
I wish it did. A day trip to the Peak District would be a little less arduous. Actually N Warks borders Staffs and Leics, but you're right about the difference from S Warks. The question I'd like answered is, do the good people of Stratford really want to entertain the drinking classes of Birmingham and Coventry from now until Christmas?
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.
But the reason Hitler took the whole of Czechoslovakia was that he didn't want it to be a factor in his plans for further conquest, so your argument is circular.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Or if the French and Brits had made serious overtures to Stalin. It was our perfunctory efforts that meant that Stalin negotiated a non aggression pact instead. He didn't want to fight unless we did too.
someone is wanting 1.7 for Tyson Fury to get in top 3. There's £40 there. now there is only one spot left in the 6-person shortlist so I'm guessing they have inside knowledge it might be him. but even then I wouldnt have him odds on to make the top 3.
He’s a British World Champion, in a year when there haven’t been many of those. I’d back him to be nominated at 1/10.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.
It’s a counterfactual but my issue with what you are doing is your prioritising what he said in private over his public announcements and writings over some two decades. He was clearly lying in one or the other, I tend to believe the public pronouncements. The whole period of the phony war, which was essentially a period of de facto peace during a declared war, gave him ample opportunity to back off (to a greater or lesser extent) but he doubled down and invaded Western Europe, thus ensuring a general, non phony, war.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Tooze’s book on the Nazi economy is a worthwhile read. It reveals how the way Germany was financing everything, and its economic vulnerability to the US, essentially put Hitler on a tight timetable for war, regardless of the politics.
someone is wanting 1.7 for Tyson Fury to get in top 3. There's £40 there. now there is only one spot left in the 6-person shortlist so I'm guessing they have inside knowledge it might be him. but even then I wouldnt have him odds on to make the top 3.
He’s a British World Champion, in a year when there haven’t been many of those. I’d back him to be nominated at 1/10.
Jonathan Rea, world superbike champion for the sixth time, and from Northern Ireland if that counts. I can't see Tao Geoghegan Hart even given the strength of the cycling lobby, but Rea would put me off 1/10 Fury to qualify (and vice versa of course).
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.
It’s a counterfactual but my issue with what you are doing is your prioritising what he said in private over his public announcements and writings over some two decades. He was clearly lying in one or the other, I tend to believe the public pronouncements. The whole period of the phony war, which was essentially a period of de facto peace during a declared war, gave him ample opportunity to back off (to a greater or lesser extent) but he doubled down and invaded Western Europe, thus ensuring a general, non phony, war.
Working out who he was lying to is hard, I agree. He seems to have had the kind of sociopathic personality that nebulas lying non-stop including to *himself*
All the accounts of those close to him was that he was shocked and upset that he was in a *general* war.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Tooze’s book on the Nazi economy is a worthwhile read. It reveals how the way Germany was financing everything, and its economic vulnerability to the US, essentially put Hitler on a tight timetable for war, regardless of the politics.
France is aiming to launch a widespread Covid-19 vaccination campaign between April and June next year, its President Emmanuel Macron said
January’s going to be an interesting juxtaposition - Brexit chaos the government will be blaming on the EU, alongside a massive success in securing the early vaccinations.
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler. It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
Tooze’s book on the Nazi economy is a worthwhile read. It reveals how the way Germany was financing everything, and its economic vulnerability to the US, essentially put Hitler on a tight timetable for war, regardless of the politics.
It's an argument. The question is whether Hitler was driven by the economic issues or not. Or whether he was a gambler who had rolled so many sixes in a row that he thought he was Fate itself.
Comments
The government's strategy is fairly easy to understand. It is literally whack a mole. Oh how we laughed when that was used as an example but that is it.
They want to batter down the incidence and they will do this, clumsily as it turns out, by tiers, lockdowns, what-all else. When it comes down they will re-open to allow what economic activity that can exist to exist. And then they batter down again when naturally incidence rises.
So why that? Well first I think they were/are shit-scared of the virus and to start with they weren't sure what or how it would play out. What if no vaccine? Endless rises and falls. Secondly, it is the line, impossible to draw, between allowing what economic activity can take place, and avoiding the scenes we all saw in Italy six months ago when hospitals were overflowing.
However, and this is where @contrarian is a vital voice in all of this, the government has also monumentally fucked up. In communication, in redress, in targeting, and as @contrarian says, in the NHS. I have spoken with consultants who are seething at the lack of work being done in the "normal" NHS.
Where is the new capacity? Nightingale? Anything else? What about a signing on bonus of £XXXXX to nurses and doctors and related disciplines.
Plus the control. Brady is right. This is an unprecedented restriction on freedom and the country, whether because of furlough, or holding on to nurse, has acquiesced in a quite extraordinary way.
And, not least on PB.
https://twitter.com/ShoaibMKhan/status/1333813022020825088
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
Biden 1.06
Democrats 1.06
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.06
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.06
Trump ECV 210-239 1.1
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.08
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.06
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.09
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I'll get my coat. It's the one with Dr Mudd's card in the pocket...
https://twitter.com/RichardNabavi/status/1333819017170202625
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
Not nice to see but have to respect it.
22 off the 17th over.
This is free money.
"Neville, Neville, don't worry about the Germans. The future is ELECTRIC. Instead of wasting it on planes and tanks, just give me a few billion in subsidies for my factory instead and the UK can have a world beating industry assembling my cars."
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
The first five named are Stuart Broad, Hollie Doyle, Lewis Hamilton, Jordan Henderson & Ronnie O'Sullivan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/sports-personality/55043358
*There likely is something in UKIP <- deprivation/age profile -> detected covid cases, but it's not really obvious here
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
https://xkcd.com/2392/
'However can I just warn you and your successors about the dangers of paedo divers?'
It would have been escalated to the CEO and the corporate lawyers, who are judging that the risk of calling it early is a lot higher than letting it run to the point where it’s clear beyond any doubt.
Kent and the East Midlands have moved up the rankings recently.
Would have been different a month before.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
(If I had to speculate, I'd wonder about the link between Farageism and lockdown-scepticism making the most recent lockdown less effective in certain places, but that would be massive speculation. But how else does one explain Havering?)
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1333820875800502274
A longshot is more like that general who sneered the enemy couldn't hit a barn door ...
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
Very impressive batting there by the South Africans.
Aviation is like F1 - that people walk away from horrific accidents is entirely by design, and decades of continuous improvement.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
Many of the people that die owe their deaths to design.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/trump-campaign-files-election-lawsuit-in-wisconsin-after-state-declares-biden-won-.html
In theory, the Supreme Court could argue the US Constitution requires them to declare the reanimated corpse of George Washington President. But it's all utterly in the realms of fantasy.
To be a "path to victory" it needs some semblence of plausibility (even if it needs a lot of fairly unlikely things to come together). This is "a dragon might land on the White House lawn carrying a unicorn on its back" territory.
Hitler's was to avenge 1918. He couldn't do that without War with the neighbours at some point.
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-voters-less-likely-to-change-their-underpants-every-day/
It's UKIP / not UKIP not leave / Remain.
And are you sure that 81% vs 89% is causation ?
Dare say that more medics than other professions don't take their undies off at night - but that would be because they are working!
France is aiming to launch a widespread Covid-19 vaccination campaign between April and June next year, its President Emmanuel Macron said
All the accounts of those close to him was that he was shocked and upset that he was in a *general* war.