politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New IndyRef poll from Survation sees more Scottish people m

Richard_Nabavi said:

who are overseen in this by a Select Committee chaired by Ming Campbell

How long will the said select committee have to consider this legislation between its publication and it being enacted?

PS. You haven't yet told us whether you think updating the definition of a telecommunications service to reflect changes since 2000 is an emergency.

Labour leader emerges as the least 'cool' of Britain's political leaders and even ranks behind Sir Menzies Campbell and William Hague

Ed Miliband is regarded as less "cool" than Sir Menzies Campbell, the 73-year-old former leader of the Liberal Democrats.

According to a poll by YouGov, the Labour leader has a lower "cool rating" than any other current political leader.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10961684/Ed-Miliband-is-less-cool-than-Sir-Menzies-Campbell-survey-finds.html

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing.

Yes, I do believe that most politicians, of all parties, are decent. honourable, honest, and are genuinely trying to do the best for the country. That's hardly an unreasonable view.

You surely cannot possibly hold that view of Blair?

Blair was using the country to enrich himself and secure a place in posterity. He has succeeded although not in the second case quite as he expected.

"How long will the said select committee have to consider this legislation between its publication and it being enacted?"

You seem to have an eccentric view of the role of parliamentary select committees, Mr. Edmund.

@TheScreamingEagles

"In return for agreeing to back the legislation, Labour and the Lib Dems highlighted new moves to "increase transparency and oversight", including:

The creation of a new Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to scrutinise the impact of the law on privacy and civil liberties
Annual government transparency reports on how these powers are used
The appointment of a senior former diplomat to lead discussions with the US government and internet firms to establish a new international agreement for sharing data between legal jurisdictions
A restriction on the number of public bodies, including Royal Mail, able to ask for communications data under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)
Termination clause ensuring these powers expire at the end of 2016
A wider review of the powers needed by government during the next parliament"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28237111

dyedwoolie said:

Pulpstar said:

dyedwoolie said:

BobaFett said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

BobaFett said:

Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats

No it doesn't.

It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.

And as the polls show PM Ed Miliband headed for a 97 style wipeout, he can only hoarsely exclaim through the tears and bacon 'if only we hadn't gained Broxtowe'

You must be looking at some different polls to the ones I'm seeing !

That's a mock piece based one year into a Labour minority govt where they win by 296-295 per Fisher.

Oh right haha ye, Ed Miliband's current ratings are going to look stratospheric if that's the case. Especially as he will have lost the popular vote by about 4% I think.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

You surely cannot possibly hold that view of Blair?

Blair was using the country to enrich himself and secure a place in posterity. He has succeeded although not in the second case quite as he expected.

I think Blair was primarily on an ego trip. The whole New Labour project was an unfortunate episode in our political history, which has done immense damage (as indeed you can see on this thread).

And all because Neil Kinoock had a spaz out in Sheffield.
Bloody welsh windbag

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing.

Yes, I do believe that most politicians, of all parties, are decent. honourable, honest, and are genuinely trying to do the best for the country. That's hardly an unreasonable view.

In this particular case, it's not just what the government is doing, it is all the main political parties. You can be as cynical as you like, but it is stretching credulity well beyond breaking point to conclude that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, William Hague, and all the other senior politicians from all parties who agree that this needs to be done, and who are overseen in this by a Select Committee chaired by Ming Campbell, are engaged in some collective conspiracy against our liberties for no good reason.

You've never heard of "groupthink" then.

I have seen - in the City - far too many examples of groups of highly intelligent and on the whole well-meaning people all saying the same thing and agreeing with each other and either no-one speaking up and saying "hang on: why? what about this? are you sure? This doesn't sound right etc" or not listening to such voices.

And, then, a few years later it all turns out to be a disaster and people then ask: why did no-one spot the obvious flaws or ask the obvious - or any - questions?

So the fact that a lot of politicians agree with each other, particularly when it's ingrained in them not to rock the boat, doesn't give me any confidence at all. I'd like there to be proper scrutiny, proper debate not a rushed job from which it will be difficult to extricate ourselves.

One reason why I strongly object to this law is this: the courts have ruled that what is currently being done is illegal. Rather than abide by the law the government is seeking to override the courts' decision. This is not the rule of law. It sets a very worrying precedent. One of the reasons the ECJ ruled against the current law was because it was disproportionate. And the one thing that is not being considered here is whether these very extensive powers are proportionate. That is either rushed and thoughtless law-making or (am I being too cynical here?) the ECJ decision being used as a pretext for legislating for powers the government wants to have but is afraid or unwilling to have properly debated by the public and in Parliament.

edmundintokyo said:

Got it, my bad.

No, the argument isn't that it should have been brought in earlier, it's that since the change isn't necessary to deal with an emergency it should be given normal parliamentary scrutiny before being passed.

Ok, well that is a fair enough point. Governments do tend to bundle things together, presumably because the vagaries of the parliamentary process and timetable make it more convenient to do so. And yes, they may well be making a calculation that it's easier to get the changes through as part of this package. Some might call that a 'cynical calculation', but it's not cynical, it's realistic.

dyedwoolie said:

dyedwoolie said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

You surely cannot possibly hold that view of Blair?

Blair was using the country to enrich himself and secure a place in posterity. He has succeeded although not in the second case quite as he expected.

I think Blair was primarily on an ego trip. The whole New Labour project was an unfortunate episode in our political history, which has done immense damage (as indeed you can see on this thread).

And all because Neil Kinoock had a spaz out in Sheffield.
Bloody welsh windbag

Counter factual, Labour win in 1992.
Kinnock and John Smith are fans of the ERM, against the advice of the Gouldite wing of the Labour Party.
Black Wednesday arrives, crash.
labour splits itself apart over the fiasco, Gould leading a new eurosceptic left wing party and Labour are obliterated in 1997, with the Tories under Portillo romping home with a 180 majority over a completely split left. The Tories take the UK out of Europe, UKIP never begin, Jimmy Goldsmith doesn't piss David Mellor off, Labour spend 20 years in the wilderness under Michael Meacher.
Tony Blair defects and is Home Secretary of the Tory administration.
No mass immigration, no mass welfare bill.

And all because the ginger twat shouted out 'we're alright!' Like a fitting antelope

Portillo wouldn't have become Tory leader in 1992, he wasn't even a cabinet minister before the election.

The Tory leader had Major lost in 1992, would have been either Heseltine, Clarke or Kenneth Baker.

Cyclefree said:

One reason why I strongly object to this law is this: the courts have ruled that what is currently being done is illegal. Rather than abide by the law the government is seeking to override the courts' decision. This is not the rule of law. It sets a very worrying precedent. One of the reasons the ECJ ruled against the current law was because it was disproportionate. And the one thing that is not being considered here is whether these very extensive powers are proportionate. That is either rushed and thoughtless law-making or (am I being too cynical here?) the ECJ decision being used as a pretext for legislating for powers the government wants to have but is afraid or unwilling to have properly debated by the public and in Parliament.

I don't think that's quite right. The ECJ hasn't ruled on the law, has it? My reading is that the ECJ has decided that the directive is flawed because it doesn't insist on various safeguards:

Article 7 of Directive 2006/24 does not lay down rules which are specific and adapted to (i) the vast quantity of data whose retention is required by that directive, (ii) the sensitive nature of that data and (iii) the risk of unlawful access to that data, rules which would serve, in particular, to govern the protection and security of the data in question in a clear and strict manner in order to ensure their full integrity and confidentiality. Furthermore, a specific obligation on Member States to establish such rules has also not been laid down.

Any given implementation of the directive in national law might in fact comply with such rules. In other words, the directive might be unlawful, but the UK law might be OK (or at least would be OK if it wasn't dependent on the directive being lawful), if it complied with the various criteria such as protecting the integrity and confidentiality of the data.

So effectively what is happening here is a UK-only law, not dependent on the directive, which of course can in principle be challenged in the courts like any other UK-only law.

TheScreamingEagles said:

dyedwoolie said:

dyedwoolie said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

You surely cannot possibly hold that view of Blair?

Blair was using the country to enrich himself and secure a place in posterity. He has succeeded although not in the second case quite as he expected.

I think Blair was primarily on an ego trip. The whole New Labour project was an unfortunate episode in our political history, which has done immense damage (as indeed you can see on this thread).

And all because Neil Kinoock had a spaz out in Sheffield.
Bloody welsh windbag

Counter factual, Labour win in 1992.
Kinnock and John Smith are fans of the ERM, against the advice of the Gouldite wing of the Labour Party.
Black Wednesday arrives, crash.
labour splits itself apart over the fiasco, Gould leading a new eurosceptic left wing party and Labour are obliterated in 1997, with the Tories under Portillo romping home with a 180 majority over a completely split left. The Tories take the UK out of Europe, UKIP never begin, Jimmy Goldsmith doesn't piss David Mellor off, Labour spend 20 years in the wilderness under Michael Meacher.
Tony Blair defects and is Home Secretary of the Tory administration.
No mass immigration, no mass welfare bill.

And all because the ginger twat shouted out 'we're alright!' Like a fitting antelope

Portillo wouldn't have become Tory leader in 1992, he wasn't even a cabinet minister before the election.

The Tory leader had Major lost in 1992, would have been either Heseltine, Clarke or Kenneth Baker.

Also: even if we had left the EU, we would almost certainly have continued to be part of the EEA and accepted the Four Freedoms (Capital, Services, Goods and Labour).

Also, also: I think you forget how much the Labour Party and unions were 'true believers' in the EU by that point, not least because Mrs Thatcher was falling out with Europe.

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

Got it, my bad.

No, the argument isn't that it should have been brought in earlier, it's that since the change isn't necessary to deal with an emergency it should be given normal parliamentary scrutiny before being passed.

Ok, well that is a fair enough point. Governments do tend to bundle things together, presumably because the vagaries of the parliamentary process and timetable make it more convenient to do so. And yes, they may well be making a calculation that it's easier to get the changes through as part of this package. Some might call that a 'cynical calculation', but it's not cynical, it's realistic.

Of course it's cynical. An emergency bill, rushed through without due consideration, should only contain the emergency powers.

It's absurd it's even an emergency bill. We've known about this coming decision for months. It's been delieberately done by Cameron and the big brother brigade in order to get it through without scrutiny or public debate. The man is utterly lacking in the traditions of British democratic governance. Given his position on Europe and civil liberties, we shouldn't be surprised.

Hear, hear.

FalseFlag said:

rcs1000 said:

@AveryLP

TBH, I think you over-analyse.

The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.

And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.

UK          57.5
USA         57.3
Ireland     55.3
Spain       54.6
Italy       52.6
Netherlands 52.3
Germany     52.0
Japan       51.5
India       51.5
China       50.7
Poland      50.3
Russia      49.1
Brazil      48.7
South Korea 48.4
France      48.2

PMIs are backward looking.

You're not an economist, are you FalseFlag?

BobaFett said:

It's amazing how often we hear memories of 1992 on PB.

Strange for an election that took place more than a generation ago.

Yet we hear about it far more often than we do more recent polls.

And we hear about one night in Sheffield incredibly often.

Only on PB.

Probably because it was a pivotal moment in political history and this is a political site.
Stil, the trend is your friend. Except when it isn't.

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

dyedwoolie said:

dyedwoolie said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

You surely cannot possibly hold that view of Blair?

Blair was using the country to enrich himself and secure a place in posterity. He has succeeded although not in the second case quite as he expected.

I think Blair was primarily on an ego trip. The whole New Labour project was an unfortunate episode in our political history, which has done immense damage (as indeed you can see on this thread).

And all because Neil Kinoock had a spaz out in Sheffield.
Bloody welsh windbag

Counter factual, Labour win in 1992.
Kinnock and John Smith are fans of the ERM, against the advice of the Gouldite wing of the Labour Party.
Black Wednesday arrives, crash.
labour splits itself apart over the fiasco, Gould leading a new eurosceptic left wing party and Labour are obliterated in 1997, with the Tories under Portillo romping home with a 180 majority over a completely split left. The Tories take the UK out of Europe, UKIP never begin, Jimmy Goldsmith doesn't piss David Mellor off, Labour spend 20 years in the wilderness under Michael Meacher.
Tony Blair defects and is Home Secretary of the Tory administration.
No mass immigration, no mass welfare bill.

And all because the ginger twat shouted out 'we're alright!' Like a fitting antelope

Portillo wouldn't have become Tory leader in 1992, he wasn't even a cabinet minister before the election.

The Tory leader had Major lost in 1992, would have been either Heseltine, Clarke or Kenneth Baker.

Also: even if we had left the EU, we would almost certainly have continued to be part of the EEA and accepted the Four Freedoms (Capital, Services, Goods and Labour).

Also, also: I think you forget how much the Labour Party and unions were 'true believers' in the EU by that point, not least because Mrs Thatcher was falling out with Europe.

No, Labour was far more divided in 1992 on the issue, it was only the Tory party being in government and therefore responsible for the ERM fiasco that stopped it surfacing. Things would have been very different if Gould had beaten Smith to the leadership. Not that a 82 point hammering was close mind you!

dyedwoolie said:

BobaFett said:

It's amazing how often we hear memories of 1992 on PB.

Strange for an election that took place more than a generation ago.

Yet we hear about it far more often than we do more recent polls.

And we hear about one night in Sheffield incredibly often.

Only on PB.

Probably because it was a pivotal moment in political history and this is a political site.
Stil, the trend is your friend. Except when it isn't.

Polls weren't politically weighted before 1992 btw.

OblitusSumMe said:

If the central forecast of Fisher's model is correct - something which probably has a likelihood of at most 2% - then surely Cameron will remain PM?

He would have won the popular vote by nearly a million votes and be just one seat behind. Something to buy off the votes of the DUP would be enough to see a Queen's Speech passed, assuming that the Lib Dems abstained.

To be honest, in such a scenario I suspect both Labour and the Conservatives would be falling over themselves in an attempt to land the other side with the poisoned chalice of trying to run the country in the most disastrous of all possible parliamentary conditions. It would be responsibility without power, it wouldn't end well, and they'd know it wouldn't end well.

Pulpstar said:

dyedwoolie said:

BobaFett said:

It's amazing how often we hear memories of 1992 on PB.

Strange for an election that took place more than a generation ago.

Yet we hear about it far more often than we do more recent polls.

And we hear about one night in Sheffield incredibly often.

Only on PB.

Probably because it was a pivotal moment in political history and this is a political site.
Stil, the trend is your friend. Except when it isn't.

Polls weren't politically weighted before 1992 btw.

No, but it was still politically a pivotal moment and the disaster of 97-10 is born directly from it. It's extremely relevant to today, it's the whole reason for the failure of the Tories to detoxify sufficiently, and why Labour have a stubborn client vote clamped to its teats.

dyedwoolie said:

Yes, it's a proposition fraught with what ifs and maybes. I very much doubt Cameron would want it in those circumstances, it's a guaranteed slaughtering at the next available vote for whoever takes the reins. More likely Cam PM for six months with supply and confidence, no major programme, merely caretaker stuff and a revote.

Generally, the party that gets power in that sort of situation gets a proper mandate a bit later with a fresh election before the honeymoon has worn off. Whether that would work for Cameron in year 6 of his government is dubious, though.

Ominous over for Root there.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

If the central forecast of Fisher's model is correct - something which probably has a likelihood of at most 2% - then surely Cameron will remain PM?

He would have won the popular vote by nearly a million votes and be just one seat behind. Something to buy off the votes of the DUP would be enough to see a Queen's Speech passed, assuming that the Lib Dems abstained.

To be honest, in such a scenario I suspect both Labour and the Conservatives would be falling over themselves in an attempt to land the other side with the poisoned chalice of trying to run the country in the most disastrous of all possible parliamentary conditions. It would be responsibility without power, it wouldn't end well, and they'd know it wouldn't end well.

It's pretty similar to February 1974 when Heath tried to negotiate a deal to hang on. I don't see Cameron just giving up over one seat.

edmundintokyo said:

A couple of things of significance raised by people on Twitter looking at this thing on their friday lunch breaks, which is apparently how legislation is scrutinised in the UK..

I thought you were keen on that kind of hip twenty-first century way of doing things - crowd-scrutiny?

At the risk of putting the mockers on him Ali can't bowl for toffee but he looks a superb batsman. The comparisons with Amla do not end with the beard.

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

A couple of things of significance raised by people on Twitter looking at this thing on their friday lunch breaks, which is apparently how legislation is scrutinised in the UK..

I thought you were keen on that kind of hip twenty-first century way of doing things - crowd-scrutiny?

The hitch is that parliament is still decidedly unhip, so even when people post issues with the legislation and write fixes for it they can't get the government to accept their pull requests.

That said, one interesting thing about the strategy of keeping something secret then dropping it three days before the vote is that although it repels a lot of traditional opposition, it kind-of plays into the hands of the Falkvingesque swarm, which works better when it has a deadline and has a hard time paying attention to anything for more than three days in any case.

Timber !

The game's more exciting without DRS IMO.

AndyJS said:

The game's more exciting without DRS IMO.

I was thinking that

Hard to adjust to the umpires decision being final!

*** LOOKS AROUND TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CROSSOVER POLLS ***

"Sorry Basil, keep on going ".

Richard_Nabavi said:

edmundintokyo said:

The hitch is that parliament is still decidedly unhip, so even when people post issues with the legislation and write fixes for it they can't get the government to accept their pull requests.

True, but Drip 1.1 is slated for release in 2016.

You know how this works, at that point you're not allowed to fix the bugs because it would break somebody's workflow.

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

If the central forecast of Fisher's model is correct - something which probably has a likelihood of at most 2% - then surely Cameron will remain PM?

He would have won the popular vote by nearly a million votes and be just one seat behind. Something to buy off the votes of the DUP would be enough to see a Queen's Speech passed, assuming that the Lib Dems abstained.

To be honest, in such a scenario I suspect both Labour and the Conservatives would be falling over themselves in an attempt to land the other side with the poisoned chalice of trying to run the country in the most disastrous of all possible parliamentary conditions. It would be responsibility without power, it wouldn't end well, and they'd know it wouldn't end well.

Force them to form a grand coalition.

I think Cameron and Miliband might go for that before any coalition with UKIP tbh.

A coalition with UKIP would entail UKIP having MPs. If they do, there will a Labour majority; and thus no need for any coalition.

I was thinking that

Aren't there any South Africans England can poach?

Pietersen and Trott have masked the fact that English county cricket is not producing test quality players and hasn't for many decades.

Its a system that was set up in pre industrial revolution Britain. Somerset, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Leicestershire - I mean come on.

It needs a complete reform into a smaller number of regional entities. Hundreds of people milking a bankrupt game should be fired. The crowdless mediocrity that passes for the country game should be ended.

Thatcherise it!!!

@TOPPING‌

From memory we started drinking the '82 in the late 90s - it was a gradual transition over a period of time.

I may be older (or younger) than you think. But I'm definitely not grown up

SeanT is in Cornwall:

https://twitter.com/thomasknox

AndyJS said:

Part of the game of cricket for most people is accepting the umpire's decision even when you know it's completely wrong.

It's quite enjoyable seeing the likes of Matt Prior having to get back into that mindset.

Yes but the person who really deserves to be given out caught when not hitting it is Stuart Broad (after his disgraceful not walking at the Trent Bridge ashes test last year)

India were 9-1 at lunch - this session demonstrates precisely why Test matches are such a brilliant thing to trade.

BobaFett said:

It's amazing how often we hear memories of 1992 on PB.

Strange for an election that took place more than a generation ago.

Yet we hear about it far more often than we do more recent polls.

And we hear about one night in Sheffield incredibly often.

Only on PB.

In shock news, people on a political betting site dicuss past as well as future elections.

The "generation ago" is a red herring. Elections happen sufficiently infrequently that to get any serious number of data points you've got to go back a fair few years.

I think 1992 just happens to be a particularly interesting election. For various reasons, though the polling failure is of particular and chastening relevance to PBers. It was in some ways a "pivotal" election for post-Thatcher Britain, albeit not a realigning election in the U.S. sense.

The most "interesting" elections within the collective memory of most on this forum are arguably 2010, 1992, 1983 (as much for what didn't happen, as what actually did, and it's also the biggest recent talking point re electoral systems - a subject I once thought was of endless fascination to PBers until the AV vote put paid to most discussion of it), and a whole tranche of elections from the 1970s. Coincidentally these are also the votes I've seen discussed the most on PB.

But over the years I don't think there's an election from 1900 to the 1960s that I've not seen the guts discussed out of on here at some point. Whether that was in the context of Coalition government and the possibility of parties fracturing under the strain, the breakdown of two-party politics (rise of Labour!), the ancient history of the Tory/Unionist vote in Scotland, or without modern analogy and discussed for their own psephological sake. A while back the more historically-minded on the PB night shift went through a phase of peering over Victorian election results - I think they may have turned to the topic as a byproduct of a research project by the excellent Corporeal, though I may be misremembering. I have to admit I found that quite fascinating. Please don't bash '92 too much for being a generation-old irrelevance, you'll make some of us feel our ages!

Mr. Eagles, it's probably a non-argument anyway, as I can't see it happening.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

At the risk of putting the mockers on him Ali can't bowl for toffee but he looks a superb batsman. The comparisons with Amla do not end with the beard.

You really did put the mockers on him.

I feel exile to conhome for the remainder of this Test series is the only suitable punishment for you.

DavidL has form on this and has been warned previously. Are there any sanctions that can be applied to discourage future repeats?

BobaFett said:

England screwed surely now.

Sorry, I scrolled past that assuming it was malcolmg in wishful-thinking mode....

edmundintokyo said:

HurstLlama said:

edmundintokyo said:

HurstLlama said:

@CycleFree

No, that won't do. This has nothing to do with group think. Should HMG have the ability to intercept communications? If your answer to that is no then there is no further discussion to be had. If it should have the ability to continue to do what it has always done (for at least four hundred years) then the argument is about authorisation and oversight, so as to ensure that what the state does is necessary, lawful and proportionate.

Personally I'd like to see the granting of interception warrants taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State and given to a high court judge and the need for a warrant from a magistrate to access so called metadata. However, those are matters for 2016.

Does the new bill alter anything of significance? I suggest not and therefore ask once again, what is this fuss about?

A couple of things of significance raised by people on Twitter looking at this thing on their friday lunch breaks, which is apparently how legislation is scrutinised in the UK, are:
1) Anyone running any kind of service may now be able to be forced to put a backdoor in their software to collect data for the government and give them access to it. Previously this seems to have applied mainly to ISPs.
2) There's a very odd attempt to make British law apply to people who are nothing to do with Britain, who knows what it will turn out to mean.

PS This isn't just about what can be intercepted, it's about what people are being forced to collect and store.

Thanks, Mr Edmund. So this is not about civil liberties but about possible extra-costs and confusion amongst service providers. A storm, then, in a very small tea-cup.

No, it's not just the costs. Forcing people to spy on their users for law enforcement is a civil liberties issue, distinct from the issue of the government collecting the data. It's also a broader privacy and security issue, because this information will leak beyond the intended law enforcement uses, especially as you broaden the range of people forced to collect data beyond a small number of (hopefully) technically adept ISPs.

Sorry, Mr Edmund, I am struggling to see what your objections are. You have already said that you are happy to hand over data in case of need. What specifically is your beef? That you are worried that the security services may leak?

IDS forcing Treasury's hand?

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

At the risk of putting the mockers on him Ali can't bowl for toffee but he looks a superb batsman. The comparisons with Amla do not end with the beard.

You really did put the mockers on him.

I feel exile to conhome for the remainder of this Test series is the only suitable punishment for you.

Oh please, not that.

*slopes towards the exit*

Can I retract my cricket tip from this morning? It appears my cricketing nouse has disappeared with England's backbone

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

At the risk of putting the mockers on him Ali can't bowl for toffee but he looks a superb batsman. The comparisons with Amla do not end with the beard.

You really did put the mockers on him.

I feel exile to conhome for the remainder of this Test series is the only suitable punishment for you.

DavidL has form on this and has been warned previously. Are there any sanctions that can be applied to discourage future repeats?

Et tu Southam. Sad face.

O/T

The ante-post market for L'Arc de Triomphe to be run on 5 October, suggests that this is a three horse race with Sea The Moon, Australia and Treve all on offer at around 11/2 or 6.5 decimal.
Personally, I went for the first of these when priced at 80/1 prior to winning the German Derby. I've also had a touch each way on Taghrooda, his half sister and winner of the '14 1000 Guineas - both having been sired by the fabulous, all-conquering Sea The Stars.