politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis: Optionally Rewarding – The Dark Side of Sha

SeanT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

I have driven over it. Fabulous bridge

I went over it twice last month. Once by train, once by car. Bit disappointed, to be honest. It is oddly unspectacular.

The Norman Foster bridge in France - the Millau viaduct - is much much more impressive, literally jaw-dropping.


https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/millau-viaduct/

SeanT said:

MarqueeMark said:

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

Which cost around £2.5bn.
Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.

Why is international infrastructure a folly? It's hardly an unnecessary bridge across the Thames in central London.

People lose all perspective just because it has Boris's name attached. Boris Island would have been an inspired airport. And you could have built a new city on the site of Heathrow, a la Canary Wharf.

Yes, Boris Island made a lot of sense, in a way. It is no crazier than what Hong Kong did, which was turn an entire island into a new airport. It just needs ambition.

This "Oh, we can't do that" attitude is very depressing, and unBritish, and BoJo is a great antidote to that.

However, in this case I think the obvious choice IS to extend and expand Heathrow. It's in the best location possible (apart from maybe Luton) for the rest of the UK. It is sad for those around the airport, but then, LHR has been there decades, and would the locals want it actually closed, and all those jobs to go? No.

Expand Heathrow. Enuff.

AndyJS said:

AfD just 10% behind Merkel in new poll:


"Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects
2h2 hours ago

Germany, Emnid poll:

CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 17% (+1)
SPD-S&D: 16% (-1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 15% (+1)
LINKE-LEFT: 11%
FDP-ALDE: 10% (+1)"

Floater said:

oxfordsimon said:

SeanT said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

I have driven over it. Fabulous bridge

I went over it twice last month. Once by train, once by car. Bit disappointed, to be honest. It is oddly unspectacular.

The Norman Foster bridge in France - the Millau viaduct - is much much more impressive, literally jaw-dropping.


https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/millau-viaduct/

That bridge gives me panic attacks just to look at it. I would never use it. It just scares me too much. Even if it is visually stunning.

The Milau bridge is fine to drive over.

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

AfD just 10% behind Merkel in new poll:


"Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects
2h2 hours ago

Germany, Emnid poll:

CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 17% (+1)
SPD-S&D: 16% (-1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 15% (+1)
LINKE-LEFT: 11%
FDP-ALDE: 10% (+1)"

Germany is becoming like the Netherlands, where there are a bunch of parties in the 10-25% range, and you need six months of negotiation to get a government together.

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?

Last time I looked Denmark and Germany shared a land border.

What does that have to do with their also being a bridge between the two that is not sharing a land border?

I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.

Where is that bridge?

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?

I think you'd need two bridges, as just one connecting us to both Ireland and France would have to be absolutely huge.

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?

Last time I looked Denmark and Germany shared a land border.

What does that have to do with their also being a bridge between the two that is not sharing a land border?

I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.

Where is that bridge?

Where is which bridge?

Any time there's bodies of water between two locations for which there's a desire to traverse over the way a bridge can make sense. Even if there's a land crossing elsewhere.

Yeah, I get that - I am just trying to find the bridge between Denmark and Germany that you mentioned earlier (your post at 11:12)

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?

Last time I looked Denmark and Germany shared a land border.

What does that have to do with their also being a bridge between the two that is not sharing a land border?

I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.

Where is that bridge?

I don't know if there is one and I didn't say there was one either - I was pointing out that nations sharing a land border aren't prevented from having a bridge between them as well, as your comment suggested you think it an idiotic idea in itself. Since Denmark has many islands I don't see why it would be automatically absurd that it might have a bridge between a part of Denmark and a part of Germany even if there is not one right now. I imagine there are other nations where geography might make such an arrangement reasonable in theory even if not done in practice.

Fair point. I was just confused as I was not aware of a bridge between Denmark and Germany, though I see one is proposed...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_Fixed_Link

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

SeanT said:

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

Which cost around £2.5bn.
Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.

I dunno. I can see the many many flaws of Boris. He's a deeply unsatisfactory candidate for PM.

And yet.... the nation feels like it is in a malaise. Sickening, without actually dying. Lacking leadership and devoid of oomph. Full of potential yet sunk in mild depression, eating Budgens popcorn, drinking Lidl lager, and watching comfort TV on a 2nd hand IKEA sofa.

Maybe we need someone slightly nuts and charismatic and funny and clownish (like Boris) to get us out of this sad and persistent gloom. Corbyn also has a kind of glow, but he is just off-the-dial crazy economically and a traitor in foreign policy. Labour do not have anyone else.

Boris it is? Half his ideas will be calamitous, but then, Churchill first proposed Gallipoli

And was booted out. Then came good a couple of decades later.
I’m happy for Boris to emulate that (so long as he’s willing to forgo the Chancellor of the Exchequer interlude).

I think the Tories will realise that only Boris can beat Corbyn.

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

And Denmark to Germany. So why can't Britain have one to Ireland and France?

Last time I looked Denmark and Germany shared a land border.

What does that have to do with their also being a bridge between the two that is not sharing a land border?

I cannot imagine a bridge to France or Ireland would be feasible - even if one could be built, and I am sure it can be managed, the cost would I presume be exorbitant in these times - but even nations sharing a land border can have bridges between them apparently.

Where is that bridge?

I don't know if there is one and I didn't say there was one either - I was pointing out that nations sharing a land border aren't prevented from having a bridge between them as well, as your comment suggested you think it an idiotic idea in itself. Since Denmark has many islands I don't see why it would be automatically absurd that it might have a bridge between a part of Denmark and a part of Germany even if there is not one right now. I imagine there are other nations where geography might make such an arrangement reasonable in theory even if not done in practice.

Fair point. I was just confused as I was not aware of a bridge between Denmark and Germany, though I see one is proposed...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn_Belt_Fixed_Link

The Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link was tentatively expected to be completed in the year 2018,[3] but in 2012 the completion date was estimated to be 2021, in 2014 further pushed to 2024,[4] and in 2015 – to 2028

So much for nordic efficiency!

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

SeanT said:

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

Which cost around £2.5bn.
Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.

I dunno. I can see the many many flaws of Boris. He's a deeply unsatisfactory candidate for PM.

And yet.... the nation feels like it is in a malaise. Sickening, without actually dying. Lacking leadership and devoid of oomph. Full of potential yet sunk in mild depression, eating Budgens popcorn, drinking Lidl lager, and watching comfort TV on a 2nd hand IKEA sofa.

Maybe we need someone slightly nuts and charismatic and funny and clownish (like Boris) to get us out of this sad and persistent gloom. Corbyn also has a kind of glow, but he is just off-the-dial crazy economically and a traitor in foreign policy. Labour do not have anyone else.

Boris it is? Half his ideas will be calamitous, but then, Churchill first proposed Gallipoli

And was booted out. Then came good a couple of decades later.
I’m happy for Boris to emulate that (so long as he’s willing to forgo the Chancellor of the Exchequer interlude).

I think the Tories will realise that only Boris can beat Corbyn.

That’s not saying much. Even May beat Corbyn.

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Elon Musk was running the country we would have bridges and tunnels to Ireland....when asked how hard it would be...

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If Elon Musk was running the country we would have bridges and tunnels to Ireland....when asked how hard it would be...

I think the SEC penalty is OK actually - the cash, $40 mill isn't so much and he's still the CEO.

He is banned from being chairman for 3 years. As somebody said on an earlier thread, it is like the tv show Billions.

The_Apocalypse said:

kle4 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Party conference season actually feels a bit boring this year. I can’t even remember anything from the LD conference.

Well there was that talk about electing leaders who were not MPs and opening it up to pretty much anybody, but apparently the convoluted processes are such it was never something that could be approved this time around in any case. I think.

But it has been pretty dull so far.

I don’t expect any fireworks at Tory conference either, tbh.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

oxfordsimon said:

Well they are

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

oxfordsimon said:

Well they are looking into it now. And the FBI could have started that work - maintaining anonymity - if it had not been sat on by Dems....

Your saying Feinstein should have ignored Dr Ford’s request not to release her story ?

A hard decision to make. But if it was the only thing that would prevent such a person from taking up such an extremely powerful office which will have influence for many decades, perhaps there is a case that the answer is yes, despite the personal cost?

And an extremely easy decision to extend the confirmation process.

The haste is hard to defend, even if there are also potential political upsides for some in delay. It's not like the process needs to be quick, it would seem.

The political reality is, if the vote is postponed until after the midterms and the Dems manage to gain control of the Senate, Kavanaugh's appointment will never be confirmed. I have no idea whether the accusations are true (in truth none of us do as there is not enough evidence in either direction) but the fact remains that by introducing this evidence at the last minute, Feinstein has made this about politics rather than about representing the best interests of Dr Ford. I don't buy your suggestion that Feinstein was somehow being honorable in delaying release of this information - it was a nakedly political decision, and if Dr Ford is indeed the victim that her testimony suggests, one that has weakened her case considerably.

I agree that the correct course of action is to investigate thoroughly, but if it is the case that the charge is a a trumped up - no pun intended - one for political reasons (I'm not saying it is - we don't know - but this possibility exists as does the possbility that Kavanaugh was a serial sex offender in his youth) then by allowing an investigation to drag beyond the midterms, such potential political skulduggery is legitimised and will be used again.

This is a horrid affair that reflects badly on all, and Republicans can have no complaints having used underhand tricks in the past. But the wholly unhelpful role of Feinstein should not be ignored. This could have been handled in an organised manner months ago.

And the fact that whether one believes Kavanaugh/Ford or not can be accurately predicted along party lines is a very sad indictment indeed.

DecrepitJohnL said:

notme said:

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Bridge to Ireland

Boris is crackers

There is one connecting Denmark to Sweden

Which cost around £2.5bn.
Good luck building a Boris folly for many multiples of that.

Isn’t £2.5 billion about four days worth of deficit left in 2010?

It's a month's worth of Tory Brexit losses.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

the nation feels like it is in a malaise. Sickening, without actually dying.

It's called Brexit

JosiasJessop said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

OTOH Boris may cancel the bridge to Ireland, like he cancelled the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge in east London back in 2008...

And don't forget the tens of millions he pi**ed away on his vain Garden Bridge. The report for that shows that Boris should be placed nowhere near other peoples' money. And he could not even be bothered to cooperate with the inquiry.

As for an Ireland bridge, there are (ahem) difficulties. The shortest sea gap - between Stranraer and Belfast - goes through very deep water (Beaufort's Dyke), where more than a million tonnes of ammunition were dumped after the war. It also ends in Stranraer - convenient for the Scottish Central Belt, but not for England and the continent.

A southern route - say Dublin to Holyhead - is much longer but better placed for links to the English Midlands, Northwest and the continent - but that would connect us with Eire, who as they're in the EU are now the enemy. Having the connection to Eire might also p*ss off our Northern Irish brethren ...

TL;DR: never, ever, buy a bridge from Boris.