Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Potty punters continue to make Burnham favourite to succeed Starmer – politicalbetting.com

1456810

Comments

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,206
    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    On another note entirely, this is a brilliant thread on how old borders reflect modern political trends. One is missing, IMO: the division of England when the Danelaw was created in the late 9th century.
    https://twitter.com/valen10francois/status/1524040709862576131?s=21&t=IOg4K6mcrXuXQP0OoLrvIA

    Really interesting, thanks.
    Personally have been wondering about swings to the Tories in the Kingdom of Mercia.
    I was driving through some of the villages on the karst above Trieste yesterday, and it was striking how many of them had red flags hung out for May Day. Not just from individual windows or balconies, but some of them on large poles high above houses, so they could be seen from a distance on approaching the village, or hung above the main road from trees. A lot of trouble has been gone to hanging all those flags, and there must be a good degree of support given the number of buildings involved.

    Most of them were the plain red workers’ flag but one or two carried a symbol on them, which a bit of research later found to be the flag of Trieste when it was briefly an independent free republic (if non functioning) in the late 40s and early 50s.

    An interesting hangover from the past.
    Trieste is fabulous. Have you had the mad boiled meats yet?

    You can also see the site of the brothel visited by Joyce when he was writing Ulysses (and his favourite cafes). And take his favourite tram up to the Karst
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,769

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    I’m sure you are correct that most people thought of “controlling borders” skewed to the “closing borders” angle however it’s dumb to say that choosing to not check is not controlling our own borders.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,875
    The single most important development since the last election is the very strong revival of the anti-Tory party. That's why in the opinion polls the only really interesting number is the Tory one - and why the Tories should be a lot more concerned than they seem to be about the vote share they got last week.

  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,128

    Stocky said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Coffee Notes:

    I asked for thoughts on coffee machines for a small cafe the other week.

    We ended up going for a consumer bean-to-cup on the basis that it does make a nice coffee, but is also inexpensive enough that it will do the job whilst trade is low and starts to build, and we can either take it home and buy a larger machine if required, or just get another one to go next to it.

    We went for one of these at around £300.

    https://www.delonghi.com/en-gb//etam29-510-sb-autentica-bean-to-cup-coffee-machine/p/ETAM29.510.SB

    Simple, and makes a very nice cup off coffee, but is quite customisable. A slight annoyance is that it works in "low medium high" rather than grams of coffee per shot.

    But DeLonghi need some serious attention to their incomprehensible model numbers.

    I missed your original post - I would have suggested the Gaggia Velasca (£499 Caffe Italia). We have one and it is excellent.
    I have a jar of Kenco Smooth. A £5 jar lasts for a couple of months.

    Job done.
    That's like saying to someone who buys a PS5 that you have a crossword book and job done.
    Not really. It's still coffee. It does the same job.

    I wonder if there's a correlation between people who overpay for 'luxury' coffee and those who overpay by worshipping at the altar of Apple?

    (Runs for cover...)
    Its not the same coffee at all.

    You need decent pressure to make coffee properly and get a decent crema on your espresso. That doesn't happen with any instant coffee I've ever seen.

    Its like saying there's no difference between an old-fashioned landline and an iPhone. The branding doesn't matter, they're completely different products.
    Espresso? What's that? ;)

    Instant coffee is coffee. The coffee you drink is coffee. I drink it to get a little caffeine hit and to quench my thirst. It does the job.

    Why do you drink your very expensive coffee? The same reasons?

    It's like someone drinking a £10 bottle of wine from Mozzies and someone else drinking a £100 bottle. Probably worse, in terms of cost...
    I no more drink coffee to get a caffeine hit than I would eat chocolate to get a calorie hit.

    I drink coffee because I enjoy it and I enjoy a good coffee more than a crap one, just as I enjoy chocolate more than Brussel Sprouts.

    A good coffee has a different texture and taste to a bad one, and you can't get the texture of a proper espresso from instant coffee. Even if it's "the same beans" you can't bottle the pressure needed to make it properly in a jar, you need a machine for that.
    I'd enjoy driving a Ferrari rather than my Passat. It'd be great. But the Passat does the job, and I don't bankrupt myself in the process.

    There's another point: I've had great coffees at coffee shops, and absolutely awful ones - even from the same shop. The variability of shop coffee is such that I generally avoid them. Hot chocolates tend to be better and more consistent.

    I *enjoy* drinking my coffee. You *enjoy* drinking yours. Each to their own.
    I agree. And actually, though it was an attempt at mockery, the same *can* be said of a Playstation vs. a crossword puzzle, if the enjoyment, challenge, reward, etc. derived from each is the same.
    It wasn't meant as mockery.

    It is about getting what you enjoy. I am a gamer so I have a gaming Laptop and a Playstation and I know there's many other gamers on this site who have Playstations etc.

    I also know there are many non-gamers on this site. My grandad would be more comfortable with a crossword puzzle than a Playstation, I would never suggest he is wrong for not having a Playstation as it clearly isn't appropriate for him. A good coffee machine would similarly not be appropriate for anyone who doesn't appreciate good coffee.

    But for those who do appreciate good coffee/games getting the appropriate device while expensive initially is well worth it for the enjoyment it brings.
    I'd say instant coffee is more like a word search!

    I can't afford a Playstation coffee maker. I used to have a cafetière, which I thought made good coffee but now realise is the Spectrum 48k of coffee machines. I've compromised on a Moka pot - nowhere near enough pressure to make proper espresso but much better than stewed coffee - probably about an Amiga 500 or Atari ST level machine.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,150
    edited May 2022

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    How much of the 9/2 on, would you like?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Scott_xP said:

    As the plan to change unilaterally the Northern Ireland Protocol is in the news again today, here’s my ⁦@ConHome⁩ piece from Monday setting out 10 reasons why that would be a very bad idea. https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2022/05/david-gauke-picking-a-fight-over-the-northern-ireland-protocol-would-be-a-mistake.html

    David Gauke, the arch reminer is hardly an indeoendent voice in this
    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    With the current discord in the EU between the Baltic states, Poland and Hungary and the appalling self interest of Germany and France it is not wholly inconceivable that the EU as we know it will be something very different and certainly within the lifetime of many who voted for Brexit

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,875
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.

    Yep - and it also means that your neighbours can put whatever crap they like through your front door. The assumption that all food products than can be produced in the EU will inevitably meet EU standards is an heroic one, IMO.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,548
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    On Crypto - and NFTs for that matter - I simply don't understand the supposed value held. Yes people apparently want to pay $30k for a bitcoin, but isn't that its only value - other loons?

    At one time, I thought that Bitcoin would eventually trend towards the cost of electricity required to mine one. Not sure now though, I think it could collapse completely.

    All the other coins and NFTs have very little tangible value beyond speculation and money laundering. They’re 21st century tulip bulbs.

    (Did you manage to move your safe?).
    Not yet - the guy is going to come and look this weekend and formulate a plan. It will be hoist onto a heavy-duty trolley job - I have step-free access from the road so the tricky bit is getting it off the plinth its on.
    Is there no way you can lift it and the plinth. Assume too heavy to wiggle it onto the trolley. Likely to slide easier once you get a bit of it on the metal trolley. Once you moved it a bit you may b eable to get a crowbar under the back and get enough angle to help slide it onto trolley.
    FWIW, I'd have asked a scrap merchant if they'd remove it for free.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,701
    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,911
    Thanks Nick, this is useful analysis, just the sort of thing I come to PB to discover!
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @IshmaelZ @Foxy @BartholomewRoberts

    Shares in Tesla or Amazon or Tesco are productive assets. Property is a productive asset.

    Basically, you get paid to own them (most of the time).

    Bitcoin is not a productive asset.

    Bitcoin is a currency, plain and simple. It's something you can, in theory, exchange for goods and services (though not many people do, a bit like gold).

    Its value derives from its hardness, a bit like gold. You can't just print more of it, therefore the supply is controlled and predictable.

    A bet on bitcoin is effectively a bet against fiat currencies, against inflation, against central banks trying to maintain control.

    Placing bitcoin in the same category as a tesla share is fundamentally mis-labelling it. What gives the dollar value? People believe it has value. What gives bitcoin value? People believe it has value.

    The value of a $10 note is about .02 in paper and ink, backed by people's belief in it. The value of a bitcoin is the power used to generate it, backed by people's belief in it.

    As Morpheus says, "you think that's air you're breathing?"

    Bitcoin is gold stripped of all use value & made electronically transferrable at significant per transaction expense. Financially it’s a perpetual bearer bond that generates no interest.

    The only value it has is the speculative value that lies in your belief that someone else will pay you more for it that you yourself paid. Hence the wild swings in valuation that make it useless as a currency for individuals.

    A commodity is terrible as a national currency for a variety of reasons, most of which were discovered by experience during the C19th, when we forced several recessions on ourselves purely because of a shortage of gold & not for any actual economic reason. Tying growth in our economy to the supply of gold was a terrible, no good, very bad idea & we abandoned it eventually, to much howling from gold devotees.

    A $ on the other hand has use value: you can pay your taxes with it & because US citizens need $ to pay taxes, if we have $ we can exchange them for services from US citizens & that ground value means they can be exchanged pretty much anywhere, because the recipient has a well founded belief that they will be able to exchange that $ in the future. If that belief fails, then the $ will fail, but that has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of a $ bill & everything to do with the strenght of the US economy.

    What drives the valuation of BTC? Well, you used to be able to use it to buy drugs, but now that chain analysis is well established & the authorities treat BTC that has uncertain provenance as being radioactive that use case is falling away. Apart from that it’s pretty good for sanctions avoidance so long as there’s sufficient speculative liquidity. Otherwise, use cases seem to be few and far between & suggest an exchange valuation far below the current market price, which is driven by speculation & little else.

    The market for BTC is also one of the most incredibly rigged markets out there. The largest exchanges are effectively offshore gambling companies with completely opaque books who actively trade against their own customers. Market making is carried out using tradeable tokens that claim to be dollars but whose backing is opaque & probably consists of ponzi-like investments in crypto-currency & sub-par Chinese credit. These tokens, which the originators can freely print almost without limit, have been used to bid up the prices of crypto currencies to huge levels, driving speculative FOMO investment. For crypto buyers & dollar-tracking token holders a central risk is that this ponzi-like mechansim unwinds completely at some point.
    I can think of absolutely no value for a decentralised, permissionless currency that can be transported easily across borders, cannot be censored, costs mere cents to send millions (or billions) in value to another person, and works when the banks are shut.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/ukrainian-flees-to-poland-with-2000-in-bitcoin-on-usb-drive.html

    But I have argued with boomers on this enough - it's really fascinating to see just how invested you are in the status quo. Morpheus was right - some people can't be unplugged...
    I wonder if we're not going to see "can't be censored" tested in the next couple of years.

    Looking at these hashrate numbers, you have
    US: 35%
    Canada 10%
    Ireland 5%
    Germany 5%
    ...so easily 55% for countries currently sanctioning Russia, more if you add in a bunch of little ones.
    https://chainbulletin.com/bitcoin-mining-map/

    These mining operations are nearly all known to their governments: You can't compete without scale, and you can't have scale without being known to your local utility or local government.

    Russia is obviously trying to avoid sanctions. Currently you can send bitcoins without restriction, but they're mostly pretty easy to trace.

    With 55% of hashrate you can blacklist an address. If anyone tries to spend from it, you orphan their blocks.

    If these governments can identify funds belonging to sanctioned companies and individuals, and they're being used to avoid sanctions, why wouldn't they use their power to block them?
    I think this is also a very good point.

    In terms of blacklisting, they can certainly control the fiat on/off ramps, but censoring via controlling hashrate is also an interesting one. It is certainly possible, and nation states have the power to do it.

    My guess is bitcoin would fork, and the new fork would have some kind of censorship resistance built into it that prevents this, and most liquidity would follow the new fork? Or else it all goes to zero.

    All of this stuff will eventually be tested and if it fails those tests, then yes it deserves to go to zero (or lose however much value) on the basis of it no longer having that use case.

    Interesting times ahead, and yes a lot of the value is speculative.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    How much of the 9/2 on, would you like?
    I don't understand what you're offering? Explain please.

    I'm not betting anything on SKS. I think he is quite likely to resign.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,727
    IshmaelZ said:

    I only realised a week ago that Laurence Fishburne is the machine gunner on the boat in Apocalypse Now

    Gerard Butler is on the warship that is sunk at the start of Tomorrow Never Dies
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,812
    edited May 2022
    They fought a lukewarm campaign and inched sideways against an unpopular government in the teeth of an economic crisis. The fact Prospect has to go back to compare 8 years to the pre brexit, pre realignment, pre Corbyn and May, Starmer and Johnson era to give us the 'real' picture says it all.
    In 2014 Kippers got 17%, it is utterly useless as a comparison.
  • boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.

    Yep - and it also means that your neighbours can put whatever crap they like through your front door. The assumption that all food products than can be produced in the EU will inevitably meet EU standards is an heroic one, IMO.

    If we didn't need checks to know that EU products met EU standards as members, why would we need them as non-members? They're still subject to the same regulations.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096

    The single most important development since the last election is the very strong revival of the anti-Tory party. That's why in the opinion polls the only really interesting number is the Tory one - and why the Tories should be a lot more concerned than they seem to be about the vote share they got last week.

    You are posting, if I may say, some extremely insightful things of late. I expect you will say something to rile me at some point but once again I think you are absolutely spot on.

    And you're onto something here big time. That anti-vote is something I can only really recall viscerally feeling in 1997 and in the winter of 1978/9, which I just remember.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,727
    boulay said:

    it’s dumb to say that choosing to not check is not controlling our own borders.

    Nope.

    It's true we have the choice.

    It's not true that choosing not to control them is the same as controlling them.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,439

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    edited May 2022

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 926
    edited May 2022


    Arguably, as covered earlier, it underlines the limits of authoritarian government: you can force people to comply with some things, but you can't make them trust you. And vaccine takeup is very much linked to trusting authorities.

    If you're a well-resourced authoritarian government willing to take strict measures like confining people to their homes, what stops you from simply drawing up schedules and marching everybody down to the local vaccination centre to stand in a line kept orderly by the police/army/etc to be jabbed by efficient military doctors? (I'm not suggesting physically restraining people to be jabbed, just that I think a little unspoken intimidation and everybody else being in the queue and going along with it would be enough.) In democratic countries we rely almost entirely on trust in the system and the government to drive vaccine takeup, but that's because we have lines we're not willing to cross regarding imposing things on the population.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
    What democratic mandate? Pro-referendum parties got ~7.3%(*) of the seats in the last election to the legislative body that can call a referendum.

    (*) SNP - 7.3%. Not sure if the GPEW follows their Scottish sister party in calling for a referendum, or if PC or any of the NI parties have a position.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,182
    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    How much of the 9/2 on, would you like?
    I don't understand what you're offering? Explain please.

    I'm not betting anything on SKS. I think he is quite likely to resign.
    Really? For beergate or for other reasons? How likely?
    My guess is chances of resignation over beergate are somewhat less than 10%. And I can't see him resigning for any other reasons, though there are always black swans.
  • Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2022

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.

    Yep - and it also means that your neighbours can put whatever crap they like through your front door. The assumption that all food products than can be produced in the EU will inevitably meet EU standards is an heroic one, IMO.

    If we didn't need checks to know that EU products met EU standards as members, why would we need them as non-members? They're still subject to the same regulations.
    In most cases you’re not checking the actual standard of the goods themselves, you’re checking that the goods match the paperwork.

    If some random farmer in Bulgaria sprays his crops with banned chemicals, they’ll still be compliant with “EU standards” because the paperwork says they came from an EU country - unless you actually take a sample of the crop and know which chemicals to test for.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    Andy_JS said:

    I see the zerocovidians have doubled down in Shanghai. Don’t they think the Chinese have noticed that everyone else is pretty much getting on with their lives?

    I think it might have something to do with the leader of China wanting to assert his authority over the population, no matter what the cost. He's hosting a conference later this year where he intends to effectively appoint himself as leader for life.
    I'm getting the feeling that it's because they've utterly screwed up and they're stuck in a cleft stick.
    Arguably, as covered earlier, it underlines the limits of authoritarian government: you can force people to comply with some things, but you can't make them trust you. And vaccine takeup is very much linked to trusting authorities.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01855-7
    ... covers what would happen if they dropped the restrictions right now. In essence, they've failed to get anywhere near the level of immunity needed. They're looking at swamping intensive care capacity by a factor of over 15 times, and over 1.5 million deaths.

    They could avert all of that and progressively drop restrictions by ensuring vaccination of the more vulnerable and accessing anti-viral therapies.

    I did see a thread covering their exit strategy which did seem reliant on improving vaccine takeup and rolling out antivirals, but they seem to have badly stalled. Quite possibly thanks to the failure of getting trust.
    And, of course, their crude, authoritarian, and heavy-handed approach to lockdowns is further reducing actual trust...
  • Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    Any need to attack Heathener again dude? She just made a small mistake
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,080
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
    "Glen and Friends" make an 1886 coca cola recipe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWYuPE8rkeE
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
    I have no problem with indyref 2 being held and have maintained all along it would vote for the union and of course this was before Putin started threatening nuclear weaponry and Sturgeon's stance on getting rid of Trident is just another for her 'fail' column
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Phil said:

    kyf_100 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @IshmaelZ @Foxy @BartholomewRoberts

    Shares in Tesla or Amazon or Tesco are productive assets. Property is a productive asset.

    Basically, you get paid to own them (most of the time).

    Bitcoin is not a productive asset.

    Bitcoin is a currency, plain and simple. It's something you can, in theory, exchange for goods and services (though not many people do, a bit like gold).

    Its value derives from its hardness, a bit like gold. You can't just print more of it, therefore the supply is controlled and predictable.

    A bet on bitcoin is effectively a bet against fiat currencies, against inflation, against central banks trying to maintain control.

    Placing bitcoin in the same category as a tesla share is fundamentally mis-labelling it. What gives the dollar value? People believe it has value. What gives bitcoin value? People believe it has value.

    The value of a $10 note is about .02 in paper and ink, backed by people's belief in it. The value of a bitcoin is the power used to generate it, backed by people's belief in it.

    As Morpheus says, "you think that's air you're breathing?"

    Bitcoin is gold stripped of all use value & made electronically transferrable at significant per transaction expense. Financially it’s a perpetual bearer bond that generates no interest.

    The only value it has is the speculative value that lies in your belief that someone else will pay you more for it that you yourself paid. Hence the wild swings in valuation that make it useless as a currency for individuals.

    A commodity is terrible as a national currency for a variety of reasons, most of which were discovered by experience during the C19th, when we forced several recessions on ourselves purely because of a shortage of gold & not for any actual economic reason. Tying growth in our economy to the supply of gold was a terrible, no good, very bad idea & we abandoned it eventually, to much howling from gold devotees.

    A $ on the other hand has use value: you can pay your taxes with it & because US citizens need $ to pay taxes, if we have $ we can exchange them for services from US citizens & that ground value means they can be exchanged pretty much anywhere, because the recipient has a well founded belief that they will be able to exchange that $ in the future. If that belief fails, then the $ will fail, but that has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of a $ bill & everything to do with the strenght of the US economy.

    What drives the valuation of BTC? Well, you used to be able to use it to buy drugs, but now that chain analysis is well established & the authorities treat BTC that has uncertain provenance as being radioactive that use case is falling away. Apart from that it’s pretty good for sanctions avoidance so long as there’s sufficient speculative liquidity. Otherwise, use cases seem to be few and far between & suggest an exchange valuation far below the current market price, which is driven by speculation & little else.

    The market for BTC is also one of the most incredibly rigged markets out there. The largest exchanges are effectively offshore gambling companies with completely opaque books who actively trade against their own customers. Market making is carried out using tradeable tokens that claim to be dollars but whose backing is opaque & probably consists of ponzi-like investments in crypto-currency & sub-par Chinese credit. These tokens, which the originators can freely print almost without limit, have been used to bid up the prices of crypto currencies to huge levels, driving speculative FOMO investment. For crypto buyers & dollar-tracking token holders a central risk is that this ponzi-like mechansim unwinds completely at some point.
    I can think of absolutely no value for a decentralised, permissionless currency that can be transported easily across borders, cannot be censored, costs mere cents to send millions (or billions) in value to another person, and works when the banks are shut.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/ukrainian-flees-to-poland-with-2000-in-bitcoin-on-usb-drive.html

    But I have argued with boomers on this enough - it's really fascinating to see just how invested you are in the status quo. Morpheus was right - some people can't be unplugged...
    I wonder if we're not going to see "can't be censored" tested in the next couple of years.

    Looking at these hashrate numbers, you have
    US: 35%
    Canada 10%
    Ireland 5%
    Germany 5%
    ...so easily 55% for countries currently sanctioning Russia, more if you add in a bunch of little ones.
    https://chainbulletin.com/bitcoin-mining-map/

    These mining operations are nearly all known to their governments: You can't compete without scale, and you can't have scale without being known to your local utility or local government.

    Russia is obviously trying to avoid sanctions. Currently you can send bitcoins without restriction, but they're mostly pretty easy to trace.

    With 55% of hashrate you can blacklist an address. If anyone tries to spend from it, you orphan their blocks.

    If these governments can identify funds belonging to sanctioned companies and individuals, and they're being used to avoid sanctions, why wouldn't they use their power to block them?
    I think this is also a very good point.

    In terms of blacklisting, they can certainly control the fiat on/off ramps, but censoring via controlling hashrate is also an interesting one. It is certainly possible, and nation states have the power to do it.

    My guess is bitcoin would fork, and the new fork would have some kind of censorship resistance built into it that prevents this, and most liquidity would follow the new fork? Or else it all goes to zero.

    All of this stuff will eventually be tested and if it fails those tests, then yes it deserves to go to zero (or lose however much value) on the basis of it no longer having that use case.

    Interesting times ahead, and yes a lot of the value is speculative.
    It's quite hard to put censorship resistance into proof-of-work. You can change the proof-of-work algorithm to brick everyone's hardware and punish the existing miners, but you punish the non-censoring ones just as much as the censoring ones.

    You can switch to proof-of-stake and have some hope of censorship-proofing it, but at that point why are you still bothering calling it bitcoin?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,150
    edited May 2022

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    Any need to attack Heathener again dude? She just made a small mistake
    Just responding to the claim "I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections."

    I didn't respond to the mistake.

    Its a very important issue for political betting. If you think an event has a 25% chance of happening, but you can get 20/1 on it, then you should take the bet.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,875

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.

    Yep - and it also means that your neighbours can put whatever crap they like through your front door. The assumption that all food products than can be produced in the EU will inevitably meet EU standards is an heroic one, IMO.

    If we didn't need checks to know that EU products met EU standards as members, why would we need them as non-members? They're still subject to the same regulations.
    Because by telling people their stuff will not be checked they have no incentive to meet the standards in the first place. Not all products produced in the EU will automatically meet EU standards. No need to throw these away now. You can send them to the UK.

  • mickydroymickydroy Posts: 231
    Confirms my initial thought from the local elections, that the Tories have a lot to worry about, and probably the reason that the Mail is going after Starmer they are worried that their darling Tory party wont be re elected, and when they sense that, they revert to type, by smearing and lying about who ever is labour leader, it's only just started for Starmer, what an awful rag
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    A fantastically stupid post.

    I have won money on every bet I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections. What is so difficult for you to get your head around?

    Some of those bets have been fab: Chesham & Amersham thanks to Mike. Macron was a good win. LibDems to take Woking was another etc.

    I made a lot of money on the US elections, spread betting on Biden when everyone went into flat panic mode based on a sub-set of latino votes in Florida. I went against the market trend and made a lot of money.

    Biggest fuck up from me? It wasn't a bet. It was saying the invasion wouldn't happen.

    I've no idea what your point was really and I suspect you don't either.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,769
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    it’s dumb to say that choosing to not check is not controlling our own borders.

    Nope.

    It's true we have the choice.

    It's not true that choosing not to control them is the same as controlling them.
    Controlling your borders means deciding what you allow in and out, what paperwork is required etc etc.

    You can go to one extreme and say nothing or nobody can come in. That is controlling borders

    You can go to the other extreme and say everyone and anything can come in without any checks or requirements. That is controlling borders.

    Or you can take a middle ground where you say that some things can come in with out paperwork but others can’t. That is controlling borders.

    So whichever you choose to do is in your control - hence you have control of your borders. Whether it’s a good thing or bad is not the point, the point is that not checking a certain item coming in and out is up to the country who is - controlling their borders.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793
    pm215 said:


    Arguably, as covered earlier, it underlines the limits of authoritarian government: you can force people to comply with some things, but you can't make them trust you. And vaccine takeup is very much linked to trusting authorities.

    If you're a well-resourced authoritarian government willing to take strict measures like confining people to their homes, what stops you from simply drawing up schedules and marching everybody down to the local vaccination centre to stand in a line kept orderly by the police/army/etc to be jabbed by efficient military doctors? (I'm not suggesting physically restraining people to be jabbed, just that I think a little unspoken intimidation and everybody else being in the queue and going along with it would be enough.) In democratic countries we rely almost entirely on trust in the system and the government to drive vaccine takeup, but that's because we have lines we're not willing to cross regarding imposing things on the population.
    It's possible that they're aware that there are limits on their powers.
    They'll be worried of the fact that sooner or later, people start standing in front of tanks. It may be a weighed decision that locking people into their homes is something people have got used to happening - bit by bit - whilst marching people down for vaccination is different. It's less than four years since there was a vaccination scandal in China that got a lot of awareness and that was only the most recent one: https://www.asiapacific.ca/blog/vaccine-scandals-china-why-do-they-keep-happening-over-and

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    For someone who is not clued up on betting your comments seem to me to be perfectly logical
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    Any need to attack Heathener again dude? She just made a small mistake


    I didn't respond to the mistake.

    .
    You didn't respond to the betting post either lolz.

    As CHB says, any excuse to have an attack on me. This time for, literally, no reason.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    For someone who is not clued up on betting your comments seem to me to be perfectly logical
    Thank you Big G. Much appreciated. A gentleman.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,439
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
    Partial myth. Had Ecgonine which is from the same plant but less processed than cocaine.

    https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/did-coca-cola-contain-cocaine
  • Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    A fantastically stupid post.

    I have won money on every bet I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections. What is so difficult for you to get your head around?

    Some of those bets have been fab: Chesham & Amersham thanks to Mike. Macron was a good win. LibDems to take Woking was another etc.

    I made a lot of money on the US elections, spread betting on Biden when everyone went into flat panic mode based on a sub-set of latino votes in Florida. I went against the market trend and made a lot of money.

    Biggest fuck up from me? It wasn't a bet. It was saying the invasion wouldn't happen.

    I've no idea what your point was really and I suspect you don't either.
    If you didn't understand the point, then you can't have read many of Mike's headers as he's made the point repeatedly.

    If you're winning all your bets in a period of time, then that is just dumb luck it isn't smart. Smart political betting isn't about getting all your bets to win, as no gambler will win all their bets, if they did it wouldn't be gambling.

    Political betting is about finding value. Its a very important issue for political betting. If you think an event has a 25% chance of happening, but you can get 20/1 on it, then you should take the bet. If you think an event has a 95% chance of happening, but you can get 1/100, then you should not take the bet.

    You're more likely to lose the first bet, but it has a positive EV.
    You're more likely to win the second bet, but it has a negative EV.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,812
    mickydroy said:

    Confirms my initial thought from the local elections, that the Tories have a lot to worry about, and probably the reason that the Mail is going after Starmer they are worried that their darling Tory party wont be re elected, and when they sense that, they revert to type, by smearing and lying about who ever is labour leader, it's only just started for Starmer, what an awful rag
    The Tories do have to worry, yes. But not about how Starmer performed against 2014 when UKIP were a serious 17% force in politics
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,394

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    For someone who is not clued up on betting your comments seem to me to be perfectly logical
    Very difficult to see how Labour don't select a woman (however defined) next time. And it's not as though they don't have some high profile women at the top of the party. Burnham would have zero chance even if he was an MP.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    I am sure Andy Burnham might be a nice bloke to have a beer at the pub with, but what a lightweight. He reminds me of the PlusNet bloke. "The Labour Party, we'll do you proud"
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    Cookie said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    How much of the 9/2 on, would you like?
    I don't understand what you're offering? Explain please.

    I'm not betting anything on SKS. I think he is quite likely to resign.
    Really? For beergate or for other reasons? How likely?
    My guess is chances of resignation over beergate are somewhat less than 10%. And I can't see him resigning for any other reasons, though there are always black swans.
    Well, yes, I was thinking Beergate but I do wonder if the underlying issues about his charisma are something he's considered too. I mean, frankly, notwithstanding the 2019 legacy Labour should be miles ahead at the moment. They're not. That must surely be weighing on his mind? Does Beergate give him an excuse to step down?

    I may be reading too much into it. But even as a left supporter I can see that Starmer isn't exactly lighting up the country.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    And how are we doing getting those preferential trade deals...
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096

    I am sure Andy Burnham might be a nice bloke to have a beer at the pub with, but what a lightweight. He reminds me of the PlusNet bloke. "The Labour Party, we'll do you proud"

    Agreed
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
    Totally rivetting thing I learned the other day, mentioned in passing in a r4 thing about the invention of aircraft carriers: heroin and cocaine were banned in the Treaty of Versailles (the one which concluded WW1): and in the 1920s the wily japanese tried to undermine the UK by flooding London with coke from their coca plantations in Peru and Taiwan (Taiwan belonged to them at the time)
  • boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    And how are we doing getting those preferential trade deals...
    We're doing good. We already have new deals and more on the way - but of course people like Scott moan about them "hurting our farmers" as they're not as protectionist as the EU.

    So yes, good.
  • It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006
    Applicant said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
    What democratic mandate? Pro-referendum parties got ~7.3%(*) of the seats in the last election to the legislative body that can call a referendum.

    (*) SNP - 7.3%. Not sure if the GPEW follows their Scottish sister party in calling for a referendum, or if PC or any of the NI parties have a position.
    What democratic mandate?
    The biggest ever turnout
    The most votes ever cast for the SNP
    The most number of pro-independence MSPs elected (72)

    I campaigned against the SNP. But I can't deny the size of their victory which has delivered in conjunction with the Scottish Greens a clear majority of MSPs elected on a mandate for a new referendum. I believe the correct phrase is "will of the people".
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Heathener said:

    Cookie said:

    Heathener said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    How much of the 9/2 on, would you like?
    I don't understand what you're offering? Explain please.

    I'm not betting anything on SKS. I think he is quite likely to resign.
    Really? For beergate or for other reasons? How likely?
    My guess is chances of resignation over beergate are somewhat less than 10%. And I can't see him resigning for any other reasons, though there are always black swans.
    Well, yes, I was thinking Beergate but I do wonder if the underlying issues about his charisma are something he's considered too. I mean, frankly, notwithstanding the 2019 legacy Labour should be miles ahead at the moment. They're not. That must surely be weighing on his mind? Does Beergate give him an excuse to step down?

    I may be reading too much into it. But even as a left supporter I can see that Starmer isn't exactly lighting up the country.
    It was amusing that lip readers translated Boris comment to Starmer as they walked together to the Queens Speech 'How was your weeekend' !!!!!!
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    Well it won't be a woman (because it's Labour) so he's about the only choice left
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    edited May 2022

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    For someone who is not clued up on betting your comments seem to me to be perfectly logical
    Very difficult to see how Labour don't select a woman (however defined) next time. And it's not as though they don't have some high profile women at the top of the party. Burnham would have zero chance even if he was an MP.
    In my rush for sorority yesterday I did slightly overplay this point ( :blush: ) but yes I think you've expressed it very well. If Labour don't select a female leader next time it's going to cause them even more questions to answer. I don't think this is about tokenism as such. The fact is that it's an Achilles heel which the Conservatives, LibDems, SNP, Plaid etc. can and will exploit. Heck, even the Brexit Party as Reform UK has had a female leader.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,727
    boulay said:

    You can go to the other extreme and say everyone and anything can come in without any checks or requirements. That is controlling borders.

    No, it really isn't.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    Oh do stop it. Brexit was pointless. There are no upsides unless you are Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson's band of hopeless-cases-who-wouldn't-be-appointed-by-anyone-else, and a few hedge funds. I know you don't want to accept you were gulled, but you were.

    We all now have to live with it, but trying to invent "benefits of Brexit" is about as absurd as Putin trying to invent benefits from his invasion.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,812

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    If you get 5/1 for example we could have 6 battery powered horses posting. Zut alors!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,206
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    Any need to attack Heathener again dude? She just made a small mistake


    I didn't respond to the mistake.

    .
    You didn't respond to the betting post either lolz.

    As CHB says, any excuse to have an attack on me. This time for, literally, no reason.
    Have you ever considered the possibility that you have quite an irritating style of commentary?

    It’s nothing to do with your gender, race, politics, place of worship, or coffee preference. You simply come across - sometimes - as pompous, self-regarding, pious, supercilious, unself-aware, over-sensitive, and myopic.

    Other times you’re fine. You seem to be at your worst in the morning
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    it’s dumb to say that choosing to not check is not controlling our own borders.

    Nope.

    It's true we have the choice.

    It's not true that choosing not to control them is the same as controlling them.
    Controlling your borders means deciding what you allow in and out, what paperwork is required etc etc.

    You can go to one extreme and say nothing or nobody can come in. That is controlling borders

    You can go to the other extreme and say everyone and anything can come in without any checks or requirements. That is controlling borders.

    Or you can take a middle ground where you say that some things can come in with out paperwork but others can’t. That is controlling borders.

    So whichever you choose to do is in your control - hence you have control of your borders. Whether it’s a good thing or bad is not the point, the point is that not checking a certain item coming in and out is up to the country who is - controlling their borders.
    Same as when during the early phases of the pandemic we left our borders open as Schengen countries closed them. Control gives us a choice what to do, and we chose to do nothing. The people who we said had no control chose to do the thing we campaigned to do.

    We both know that is not what people voted for. Control meant stopping people coming in freely.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,080
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
    Totally rivetting thing I learned the other day, mentioned in passing in a r4 thing about the invention of aircraft carriers: heroin and cocaine were banned in the Treaty of Versailles (the one which concluded WW1): and in the 1920s the wily japanese tried to undermine the UK by flooding London with coke from their coca plantations in Peru and Taiwan (Taiwan belonged to them at the time)
    Sort of. There was a pre-war (1913) convention to work internationally to "limit" the trade in opium, cocaine and other drugs, which got written in to the ToV (1919) for reasons I'm not clear on. The drugs in question were made illegal in the UK in the 1920 Dangerous Drugs Act.
  • boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    Oh do stop it. Brexit was pointless. There are no upsides unless you are Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson's band of hopeless-cases-who-wouldn't-be-appointed-by-anyone-else, and a few hedge funds. I know you don't want to accept you were gulled, but you were.

    We all now have to live with it, but trying to invent "benefits of Brexit" is about as absurd as Putin trying to invent benefits from his invasion.
    Oh give over.

    We already have a trade deal agreed with the country I grew up in. That didn't exist pre-Brexit and wasn't possible as an EU member. That is a real benefit, right there.

    You may debate whether it is worth it or not, but to deny there are any benefits is as absurd as a Brexiteer claiming there were no harms from Brexit (there were).

    Brexit was a choice about whether the benefits outweighed the harms, not whether one side was all-benefit or the other was all-harm.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    There's still plenty of trading to be done, but at the moment I'm green on both Streeting and Reeves for next PM. I should probably green up on Starmer too at some point - the biggest risk to one of those three being next PM is, I think, that Boris gets bored, which can never entirely be ruled out.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    And how are we doing getting those preferential trade deals...
    We're doing good. We already have new deals and more on the way - but of course people like Scott moan about them "hurting our farmers" as they're not as protectionist as the EU.

    So yes, good.
    I award you this month's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf Trophy for absurd and comical reiteration of nonsensical propaganda. This is normally awarded to HYUFD, who is normally miles ahead of everyone. Well done on your achievement.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,769
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    You can go to the other extreme and say everyone and anything can come in without any checks or requirements. That is controlling borders.

    No, it really isn't.
    Ok - what do you define as “controlling borders”?

    You do realise that if a country decided to let everyone and anything in without checks etc could then be changed later when it no longer is in the interest of that country therefore they are exercising a lever using their borders which means that they control their borders.

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
    What democratic mandate? Pro-referendum parties got ~7.3%(*) of the seats in the last election to the legislative body that can call a referendum.

    (*) SNP - 7.3%. Not sure if the GPEW follows their Scottish sister party in calling for a referendum, or if PC or any of the NI parties have a position.
    What democratic mandate?
    The biggest ever turnout
    The most votes ever cast for the SNP
    The most number of pro-independence MSPs elected (72)

    I campaigned against the SNP. But I can't deny the size of their victory which has delivered in conjunction with the Scottish Greens a clear majority of MSPs elected on a mandate for a new referendum. I believe the correct phrase is "will of the people".
    Oh, you're talking about elections to the Scottish parliament? They can never produce a mandate for an independence referendum because it doesn't have the power to call one.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096
    edited May 2022

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    A fantastically stupid post.

    I have won money on every bet I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections. What is so difficult for you to get your head around?

    Some of those bets have been fab: Chesham & Amersham thanks to Mike. Macron was a good win. LibDems to take Woking was another etc.

    I made a lot of money on the US elections, spread betting on Biden when everyone went into flat panic mode based on a sub-set of latino votes in Florida. I went against the market trend and made a lot of money.

    Biggest fuck up from me? It wasn't a bet. It was saying the invasion wouldn't happen.

    I've no idea what your point was really and I suspect you don't either.
    If you didn't understand the point, then you can't have read many of Mike's headers as he's made the point repeatedly.

    If you're winning all your bets in a period of time, then that is just dumb luck it isn't smart. Smart political betting isn't about getting all your bets to win, as no gambler will win all their bets, if they did it wouldn't be gambling.

    Political betting is about finding value.
    I've never seen you make a betting post. Ever. All you ever seem to do is post right-wing, and sometimes quite nasty, rants and personal attacks on me.

    So when you make betting posts and are seen to win I will take notice.

    You are of course talking illogical rubbish. If I happen to find value and win that's great betting. There's nothing smart about losing.

    I'm on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper as Next PM at odds over 100/1. If that's not a gamble I don't know what the hell is. And they will probably lose but they're value imho.

    But you're very close to your aim Phillip of hounding me off this board. Were it not for Big G's nice polite comment I would have given up earlier. I am sick and tired of your bullying, nasty, attacks on me.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    And how are we doing getting those preferential trade deals...
    We're doing good. We already have new deals and more on the way - but of course people like Scott moan about them "hurting our farmers" as they're not as protectionist as the EU.

    So yes, good.
    Which new deals do we have then? Incidentally it is the *farmers* moaning about the terms of the signed but not implemented AusNZ deal, not Scott. Perhaps - and its a shocker - farmers know more about farming than you do. And I know you will call them a "special interest group" and indeed they are - one this government claimed to be representing...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited May 2022

    pm215 said:


    Arguably, as covered earlier, it underlines the limits of authoritarian government: you can force people to comply with some things, but you can't make them trust you. And vaccine takeup is very much linked to trusting authorities.

    If you're a well-resourced authoritarian government willing to take strict measures like confining people to their homes, what stops you from simply drawing up schedules and marching everybody down to the local vaccination centre to stand in a line kept orderly by the police/army/etc to be jabbed by efficient military doctors? (I'm not suggesting physically restraining people to be jabbed, just that I think a little unspoken intimidation and everybody else being in the queue and going along with it would be enough.) In democratic countries we rely almost entirely on trust in the system and the government to drive vaccine takeup, but that's because we have lines we're not willing to cross regarding imposing things on the population.
    It's possible that they're aware that there are limits on their powers.
    They'll be worried of the fact that sooner or later, people start standing in front of tanks. It may be a weighed decision that locking people into their homes is something people have got used to happening - bit by bit - whilst marching people down for vaccination is different. It's less than four years since there was a vaccination scandal in China that got a lot of awareness and that was only the most recent one: https://www.asiapacific.ca/blog/vaccine-scandals-china-why-do-they-keep-happening-over-and

    The other thing about China is that it's not yet quite totally, absolutely clear that Zero Covid has failed. It failed in Shanghai, but Shanghai don't seem to have jumped on cases early on with quite the alacrity that other cities did. One thing we've been seeing with covid is that governments have a really hard time changing course in the face of new evidence. The UK wasted weeks at the start trying to tackle the Spanish Flu, while countries that had SARS got a lid on it quickly but seem to be kind of baffled by Omicron; Japan closed the borders to overseas travellers keep it out, and they're still closed despite half the country already being infected.

    I expect China will eventually pivot, but not until they've tried really hard doing the previous thing and failed really obviously and badly.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,243

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    If you get 5/1 for example we could have 6 battery powered horses posting. Zut alors!
    A staple of PB
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    This may come back to cause issues for Starmer if he receives a Cumming's style verdict from Durham Police rather than a FPN and ironically penned by Mary Foy MP who was present at 'beergate'

    “The vast majority of constituents who have contacted me have expressed the view that Mr Cummings’ actions have been insensitive and unacceptable at best, and many feel that they warrant further investigation by the police.”

    “While I understand today’s decision by Durham Police to take no further action, many of the constituents who have written to me would like Mr Cummings to resign or be sacked. Clearly, whether you stick by him or not is a matter for you, but the perception from my constituents, and I would hazard a guess that this is a common view across the North East, is that you are currently putting the interests of your chief adviser above that of the people of the region and the country as a whole.”
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,182

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    Steady on, Horse!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    Oh do stop it. Brexit was pointless. There are no upsides unless you are Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson's band of hopeless-cases-who-wouldn't-be-appointed-by-anyone-else, and a few hedge funds. I know you don't want to accept you were gulled, but you were.

    We all now have to live with it, but trying to invent "benefits of Brexit" is about as absurd as Putin trying to invent benefits from his invasion.
    Oh give over.

    We already have a trade deal agreed with the country I grew up in. That didn't exist pre-Brexit and wasn't possible as an EU member. That is a real benefit, right there.

    You may debate whether it is worth it or not, but to deny there are any benefits is as absurd as a Brexiteer claiming there were no harms from Brexit (there were).

    Brexit was a choice about whether the benefits outweighed the harms, not whether one side was all-benefit or the other was all-harm.
    It was pointless. Even you are beginning to realise it. You are just a late adopter of the obvious.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,243
    eek said:

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    Well it won't be a woman (because it's Labour) so he's about the only choice left
    Shame that. Women in Labour always deliver :wink:
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    Oh do stop it. Brexit was pointless. There are no upsides unless you are Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson's band of hopeless-cases-who-wouldn't-be-appointed-by-anyone-else, and a few hedge funds. I know you don't want to accept you were gulled, but you were.

    We all now have to live with it, but trying to invent "benefits of Brexit" is about as absurd as Putin trying to invent benefits from his invasion.
    Oh give over.

    We already have a trade deal agreed with the country I grew up in. That didn't exist pre-Brexit and wasn't possible as an EU member. That is a real benefit, right there.
    Its certainly a benefit to New Zealand! Or will be in a decade when it comes into effect. Less of a benefit for British farmers though, which is who the government claimed to be helping by quitting the (massively flawed) CAP.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,206
    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,769

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    it’s dumb to say that choosing to not check is not controlling our own borders.

    Nope.

    It's true we have the choice.

    It's not true that choosing not to control them is the same as controlling them.
    Controlling your borders means deciding what you allow in and out, what paperwork is required etc etc.

    You can go to one extreme and say nothing or nobody can come in. That is controlling borders

    You can go to the other extreme and say everyone and anything can come in without any checks or requirements. That is controlling borders.

    Or you can take a middle ground where you say that some things can come in with out paperwork but others can’t. That is controlling borders.

    So whichever you choose to do is in your control - hence you have control of your borders. Whether it’s a good thing or bad is not the point, the point is that not checking a certain item coming in and out is up to the country who is - controlling their borders.
    Same as when during the early phases of the pandemic we left our borders open as Schengen countries closed them. Control gives us a choice what to do, and we chose to do nothing. The people who we said had no control chose to do the thing we campaigned to do.

    We both know that is not what people voted for. Control meant stopping people coming in freely.
    Again, I agree , I am not stating an opinion on whether it is a good or bad thing on the current border checks - I’m simply making the point that it’s completely brain dead to try to claim that we don’t have control of our borders if we choose to allow certain things to go unchecked - it is a choice that can only be made by virtue of having the control.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
    Partial myth. Had Ecgonine which is from the same plant but less processed than cocaine.

    https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/did-coca-cola-contain-cocaine
    A rubbish article of which every word is wrong; who ever thought cocaine was an hallucinogen or that it was not known in the 1880s that opium and cocaine had deleterious side effects? And there's cocaine in coca leaves (it isn't sometthing which is synthesized using the leaves as a starting point, though the powdered form cocaine hypochloride is) so there's cocaine in coca cola made of coca leaves.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
    What democratic mandate? Pro-referendum parties got ~7.3%(*) of the seats in the last election to the legislative body that can call a referendum.

    (*) SNP - 7.3%. Not sure if the GPEW follows their Scottish sister party in calling for a referendum, or if PC or any of the NI parties have a position.
    What democratic mandate?
    The biggest ever turnout
    The most votes ever cast for the SNP
    The most number of pro-independence MSPs elected (72)

    I campaigned against the SNP. But I can't deny the size of their victory which has delivered in conjunction with the Scottish Greens a clear majority of MSPs elected on a mandate for a new referendum. I believe the correct phrase is "will of the people".
    Oh, you're talking about elections to the Scottish parliament? They can never produce a mandate for an independence referendum because it doesn't have the power to call one.
    Had no idea you were such a vocal advocate for the Yes campaign.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Which part of "control our borders" included "zero border checks" ?

    Brexit is a shitshow, and will remain so long after those who voted for it are dead.

    “Control our borders” including having “zero border checks” is by definition controlling our borders.

    We control whether we check or don’t. Not a complicated concept.

    You control your front door - you can choose to lock it or leave the door swinging open - whatever option you choose based on what’s best for your family - you are controlling it - your neighbour isn’t.
    This is true enough. However, I am pretty sure that "wide open with no checks" was neither what the Vote Leave campaign were proposing nor what leave voters believed they would get.

    If we choose to maintain the same control of our borders (none) but suffer greatly from the other side controlling their border (goods and people) then what have we gained? Brexit was supposed to make people's lived experience better, not worse.
    Vote Leave and Boris Johnson specifically proposed shedding the EU's protectionism.

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_to_create_300_000_british_jobs.html

    We're doing exactly that in dropping the EU's checks with non-EU produce, where its not necessary. Something we couldn't do as EU members. This is exactly what I voted for and what swung me from Remain to Leave.

    Vote Leave to create 300,000 British jobs
    May 12, 2016
    In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals, with the USA, Japan, ASEAN, India and Mercosur. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of these countries.
    When we Vote Leave we will be able to do trade deals with all of these countries much more quickly. According to the EU’s own figures this will create 284,000 new jobs in the UK.
    Commenting, Boris Johnson said:

    'If we Vote Leave we will be able to forge bold new trade deals with growing economies around the world. These are deals that the EU has tried and failed to achieve due to protectionist forces in Europe.

    ‘After we liberate ourselves from the shackles of Brussels we will be able to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs right across the UK.

    ‘Predictably the gloomsters want to do down Britain - they claim we are not strong enough to stand on our own two feet. What total tosh. There is a huge world of opportunity and prosperity out there if we take this opportunity to take back control.’
    Oh do stop it. Brexit was pointless. There are no upsides unless you are Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson's band of hopeless-cases-who-wouldn't-be-appointed-by-anyone-else, and a few hedge funds. I know you don't want to accept you were gulled, but you were.

    We all now have to live with it, but trying to invent "benefits of Brexit" is about as absurd as Putin trying to invent benefits from his invasion.
    Oh give over.

    We already have a trade deal agreed with the country I grew up in. That didn't exist pre-Brexit and wasn't possible as an EU member. That is a real benefit, right there.
    Its certainly a benefit to New Zealand! Or will be in a decade when it comes into effect. Less of a benefit for British farmers though, which is who the government claimed to be helping by quitting the (massively flawed) CAP.
    Bart doesn't like farmers or anyone else that isn't like him (a very small clique), so he doesn't care.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    If you get 5/1 for example we could have 6 battery powered horses posting. Zut alors!
    Lol. It's good to have you back - don't leave us again!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Ms. Heathener, Mr. Roberts had a very good 250/1 tip on Sunak for next PM. While now unlikely to come off, it did enable me to make plenty of hedges so I should be green whatever happens.

    And, of course, that also means my own record tip of 250/1 remains the best ever made here :D
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006
    Leon said:

    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

    My sole objection to all the pod machines is the amount of pointless plastic waste they produce. Besides which if you buy a bean to cup machine your kitchen smells of coffee.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,875
    Leon said:

    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

    My wife has worked out a way that it can, but you need to buy a little milk warning attachment. Can't vouch for it, though, as I only have the espresso.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Cookie said:

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    Steady on, Horse!
    There's gambling and gambling.
    That doesn't strike me as value at all.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,206
    edited May 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fuckn hell, I make that 4 different stupid voices in 25 seconds.
    Ignoring Govey's own strangled fart in a Morningside cushion of course.



    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1524298053645185033?s=20&t=ksdxahd3BMKE233bBYVHcA

    Over caffeinated. Or something.
    Over-stimulated, definitely. Doubt its caffeine.
    Lots of caffeine in Coke....
    There used to be lots of coke, in Coke.

    Sadly no more.
    Partial myth. Had Ecgonine which is from the same plant but less processed than cocaine.

    https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/did-coca-cola-contain-cocaine
    A rubbish article of which every word is wrong; who ever thought cocaine was an hallucinogen or that it was not known in the 1880s that opium and cocaine had deleterious side effects? And there's cocaine in coca leaves (it isn't sometthing which is synthesized using the leaves as a starting point, though the powdered form cocaine hypochloride is) so there's cocaine in coca cola made of coca leaves.
    Sigmund Freud did a lot of cocaine in the 1880s. Given to him by Pfizer (!!) via an eye-surgeon friend

    After initial approval he later speculated in his letters that it probably had nasty side effects and addictive potential

    The cigars he smoked were worse. Gave him terrible cancers of the jaw
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:

    Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.

    So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.

    Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.

    Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.

    If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.

    Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
    1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.

    2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
    I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.

    Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
    Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).

    I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
    In 'Guns, Germs and Steel', Jared Diamond argues (slightly speculatively, it feels, in contrast to the other far more convincing arguments about other geographies) that the reason why Europe has outperformed China over the last 500 years is due to Europe splintering into competing states and statelets. Unity is therefore not strength, but weakness, for unity leads to complacency and stagnation, while separation leads to competition. This would be an example of that.
    And yet you’re a Unionist.
    Well yes and no.
    I like Scotland. Emotionally, I like the idea of the Cairngorms, the Trossachs, Glasgow, Edinburgh, being part of the country that I live in. My early childhood holidays were on the Isle of Arran. And I have Anglo-Scottish ancestry. My great grandfather owned the first electric hoover in Edinburgh. Scotland is part of my hinterland in a way that, say, East Anglia or Oxfordshire - or, indeed, Wales - isn't.
    But rationally I'm a transactionalist, and the costs and benefits of the union are not entirely one way for either party. The biggest argument in favour I see is defence - Scotland's territory and England's money is a powerful combination and both would be substantially weaker against foreign (Russian) threats apart. But take that large but single element out and I think on balance England and Scotland could well both be better off apart, for the reasons we are discussing. I sometimes wish some parts of history had gone differently (The Act of Union? The reformation? The 13th century? The reign of Athelstan?) and the whole of Britain had genuinely evolved into one nation. But it didn't. Devolution is an untidy and unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement, but so was its immediate predecessor.
    I don't know how Wales fits into this. I find it hard to make an argument that Wales would be better off independent. And it would be untidy - despite the politics, North Wales is much better tied to the North West of England than to South Wales. But if the Welsh were minded to go it alone then I'd happily wish them good luck - the current arrangements certainly don't seem to to be working out too well.
    NI wouldn't be massively missed this side of the Irish Sea.
    So if I am a unionist I'm a fairly half-hearted and conditional one.
    The SNP isn't much to my taste. But its position on independence is pretty tangential to that.
    There is not likelihood of Wales going independent
    No, I don't think so either - but it always seems that Wales gets overlooked in discussions of the union; I wanted to be fair.
    It is not likely anytime soon but then I do not see Scotland winning indyref 2 if it is held either
    Scotland will vote no if a referendum is held during the current Scottish parliamentary term. Which will be 15 years-ish since the last one. And we can formalise the timings of another one if the people of Scotland follow their no vote with another majority of parties pledged to hold a 3rd vote.

    But that only works if we respect the democratic mandate and hold a 2rd referendum. If we say no, then I can only see the support for independence growing. "You can vote for whatever you want but we won't let you have it" isn't a persuasive argument to maintain the Union.
    What democratic mandate? Pro-referendum parties got ~7.3%(*) of the seats in the last election to the legislative body that can call a referendum.

    (*) SNP - 7.3%. Not sure if the GPEW follows their Scottish sister party in calling for a referendum, or if PC or any of the NI parties have a position.
    What democratic mandate?
    The biggest ever turnout
    The most votes ever cast for the SNP
    The most number of pro-independence MSPs elected (72)

    I campaigned against the SNP. But I can't deny the size of their victory which has delivered in conjunction with the Scottish Greens a clear majority of MSPs elected on a mandate for a new referendum. I believe the correct phrase is "will of the people".
    Oh, you're talking about elections to the Scottish parliament? They can never produce a mandate for an independence referendum because it doesn't have the power to call one.
    Had no idea you were such a vocal advocate for the Yes campaign.
    Just for political reality. The Scottish parliament has no power to call a referendum, so the SNP has to persuade the UK parliament to call a referendum, and to do so it has to convince them that they will actually accept defeat next time.

    If the reaction to losing again is to wait five minutes before demanding a third referendum, they won't get a second one.

    And it's clear from their actions of the last eight years that is exactly what their reaction would be.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,182

    Leon said:

    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

    My wife has worked out a way that it can, but you need to buy a little milk warning attachment. Can't vouch for it, though, as I only have the espresso.
    My parents bought us a nespresso machine. We've never used it - we got it set up but it turns out you need particularly tiny cups and we didn't have any.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,006
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    it’s dumb to say that choosing to not check is not controlling our own borders.

    Nope.

    It's true we have the choice.

    It's not true that choosing not to control them is the same as controlling them.
    Controlling your borders means deciding what you allow in and out, what paperwork is required etc etc.

    You can go to one extreme and say nothing or nobody can come in. That is controlling borders

    You can go to the other extreme and say everyone and anything can come in without any checks or requirements. That is controlling borders.

    Or you can take a middle ground where you say that some things can come in with out paperwork but others can’t. That is controlling borders.

    So whichever you choose to do is in your control - hence you have control of your borders. Whether it’s a good thing or bad is not the point, the point is that not checking a certain item coming in and out is up to the country who is - controlling their borders.
    Same as when during the early phases of the pandemic we left our borders open as Schengen countries closed them. Control gives us a choice what to do, and we chose to do nothing. The people who we said had no control chose to do the thing we campaigned to do.

    We both know that is not what people voted for. Control meant stopping people coming in freely.
    Again, I agree , I am not stating an opinion on whether it is a good or bad thing on the current border checks - I’m simply making the point that it’s completely brain dead to try to claim that we don’t have control of our borders if we choose to allow certain things to go unchecked - it is a choice that can only be made by virtue of having the control.
    The only problem here is the politics. We were told that in the EU we had no control. And yet we saw Schengen countries closing their borders to each other whilst we did nothing.

    As usual our issue is the functional incompetence of this government. We can only have a controlled border if we resource it properly. We don't have enough Border Force or MCA staff or HMRC staff to control our borders because Patel won't pay for them. Hence the lunacy of abandoning border controls not because we're making a positive choice but because the staff don't exist and the computer doesn't exist and the facilities don't exist and there is no program to change any of those things. We're a joke.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,080

    Leon said:

    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

    My sole objection to all the pod machines is the amount of pointless plastic waste they produce. Besides which if you buy a bean to cup machine your kitchen smells of coffee.
    Nespresso pods are aluminium and they have a closed-loop recycling scheme.
  • DoubleDutchDoubleDutch Posts: 28
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    A fantastically stupid post.

    I have won money on every bet I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections. What is so difficult for you to get your head around?

    Some of those bets have been fab: Chesham & Amersham thanks to Mike. Macron was a good win. LibDems to take Woking was another etc.

    I made a lot of money on the US elections, spread betting on Biden when everyone went into flat panic mode based on a sub-set of latino votes in Florida. I went against the market trend and made a lot of money.

    Biggest fuck up from me? It wasn't a bet. It was saying the invasion wouldn't happen.

    I've no idea what your point was really and I suspect you don't either.
    If you didn't understand the point, then you can't have read many of Mike's headers as he's made the point repeatedly.

    If you're winning all your bets in a period of time, then that is just dumb luck it isn't smart. Smart political betting isn't about getting all your bets to win, as no gambler will win all their bets, if they did it wouldn't be gambling.

    Political betting is about finding value.
    I've never seen you make a betting post. Ever. All you ever seem to do is post right-wing, and sometimes quite nasty, rants and personal attacks on me.

    So when you make betting posts and are seen to win I will take notice.

    You are of course talking illogical rubbish. If I happen to find value and win that's great betting. There's nothing smart about losing.

    I'm on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper as Next PM at odds over 100/1. If that's not a gamble I don't know what the hell is. And they will probably lose but they're value imho.

    But you're very close to your aim Phillip of hounding me off this board. Were it not for Big G's nice polite comment I would have given up earlier. I am sick and tired of your bullying, nasty, attacks on me.
    I keep an eye on this forum as I like seeing how UK political thought evolves.

    Mr Roberts' attacks on you seem to me to be totally unnecessary and as you say nasty. I am not surprised you feel like leaving here when he is being so vicious towards you. What did you say to wind him up or is he just a very unpleasant person?

    Play fair people. I see Heatherners posts and think she makes a lot of very sensible points and has come out with some very good tips. That Liberal Democrat win in Woking was impressive.

    She just goes a bit over the top on the female and left winger guff but being in a minority probably makes her defensive.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,150
    edited May 2022
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    A fantastically stupid post.

    I have won money on every bet I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections. What is so difficult for you to get your head around?

    Some of those bets have been fab: Chesham & Amersham thanks to Mike. Macron was a good win. LibDems to take Woking was another etc.

    I made a lot of money on the US elections, spread betting on Biden when everyone went into flat panic mode based on a sub-set of latino votes in Florida. I went against the market trend and made a lot of money.

    Biggest fuck up from me? It wasn't a bet. It was saying the invasion wouldn't happen.

    I've no idea what your point was really and I suspect you don't either.
    If you didn't understand the point, then you can't have read many of Mike's headers as he's made the point repeatedly.

    If you're winning all your bets in a period of time, then that is just dumb luck it isn't smart. Smart political betting isn't about getting all your bets to win, as no gambler will win all their bets, if they did it wouldn't be gambling.

    Political betting is about finding value.
    I've never seen you make a betting post. Ever. All you ever seem to do is post right-wing, and sometimes quite nasty, rants and personal attacks on me.

    So when you make betting posts and are seen to win I will take notice.

    You are of course talking illogical rubbish. If I happen to find value and win that's great betting. There's nothing smart about losing.

    I'm on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper as Next PM at odds over 100/1. If that's not a gamble I don't know what the hell is. And they will probably lose but they're value imho.

    But you're very close to your aim Phillip of hounding me off this board. Were it not for Big G's nice polite comment I would have given up earlier. I am sick and tired of your bullying, nasty, attacks on me.
    I'm not hounding you, I didn't say anything critical about you, I made a point about gambling and value. Winning every bet is not the purpose of the site, finding value is. If you can find 10x 100/1 long shots and only three comes in you've lost 70% of your bets but you're massively winning - that is what Mike does on this site.

    On the other hand you continuing to use my real name, even after repeated requests not to including from @PBModerator that Doxxing is against the rules is harassment pure and simple.

    As for betting posts, I've made tips before (most recently tipping Streeting as next Labour leader, I'm on at 10/1) and most famously tipping Sunak at 250/1. Whether that bet comes in or not it was fantastic value, which is the proof of what I was saying about the difference between winning bets and identifying value.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Applicant said:

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    There's still plenty of trading to be done, but at the moment I'm green on both Streeting and Reeves for next PM. I should probably green up on Starmer too at some point - the biggest risk to one of those three being next PM is, I think, that Boris gets bored, which can never entirely be ruled out.
    Or. Does something so egregiously stupid that even Tory MP's are forced to act.
    Given the form he is highly likely to do the former.
    Even if the latter looks less likely.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,080

    Leon said:

    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

    My wife has worked out a way that it can, but you need to buy a little milk warning attachment. Can't vouch for it, though, as I only have the espresso.
    The milk warming attachment is good. The Nespresso machine with a steam wand and milk jug is better still. If you can't be bothered with grinding beans, controlling pressure and draw time etc. and want a good, consistent quality coffee with a huge variety of flavour profiles (milky or otherwise) you can't beat it, IMHO. I have one.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    It will be Wes Streeting next, I would almost put my life on it.

    I think Starmer for next PM is best bet and this could be combined with Streeting for next LP leader.

    If the LP has any sense (?) it will base it's choice on the best way to win rather than on other factors (such as gender). Putting it another way, which candidate would the CP least want to be up against?

    Of some possible candidates, I'd place the CPs choice in the following order:

    1) RLB
    2) Reeves
    3) Nandy
    4) Cooper
    5) Raynor
    6) Streeting


  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,080
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Why no votes for the Nespresso machine?!

    Produces a decent simulacrum of espresso. As good as you’d get from Starbucks. Can’t make a flat white tho

    My wife has worked out a way that it can, but you need to buy a little milk warning attachment. Can't vouch for it, though, as I only have the espresso.
    My parents bought us a nespresso machine. We've never used it - we got it set up but it turns out you need particularly tiny cups and we didn't have any.
    That's odd. You don't *need* to make tiny cup espressos with it - you can stick a giant mug under it (flapping away the little tiny cup flap) and run 3 long shots in if you want.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,096

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    **** BETTING POST *****

    NEXT PM ODDS

    The Odds-on favourite to be next PM after Boris is Keir Starmer at around 9/2

    After him it continues to be Conservative MPs who have short odds, some of them extremely short e.g. Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss at 11/2

    So the markets are basically waging here on one of two options

    OPTION 1

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives until the GE and loses to SKS who becomes PM
    OR Boris Johnson falls soon and is replaced by a current tory MP

    Neither of those bets look like value to me. I see little evidence that Boris Johnson is going anywhere and there's now a massive cloud hanging over SKS. Will the latter survive? Maybe he will but I'd put it no better than 50/50.

    Which leaves us with two possibilitie

    OPTION 2

    EITHER Boris Johnson survives and wins next time
    OR Boris Johnson loses and another Labour leader becomes PM

    The first of those is unlikely in my opinion but not impossible

    The value remains in the second.

    What is ABSOLUTELY NOT VALUE is betting on Andy Burnham. He was useless last two times (beaten twice), had the personality of a dead haddock, will not appeal to the south, is not even an MP and has the added disadvantage of being a man at a time when Labour need to select a female leader to lance a boil.

    (Please don't just do pooh-pooh of this. It's about logic so reply in similar vein please.)

    9/2 is not "odds-on". I hope you don't bet serious money.
    I do and I've won every bet that I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections.

    You're right of course and it was an oversight or typo but there's really no need to be a pissy dick about it. Ta.
    Anyone who claims to have won every bet they have placed either is not being honest, not a regular gambler, or doesn't understand the principle of "value" in gambling.

    Gambling successfully is about finding value.
    A fantastically stupid post.

    I have won money on every bet I've placed since, and including, the US Presidential elections. What is so difficult for you to get your head around?

    Some of those bets have been fab: Chesham & Amersham thanks to Mike. Macron was a good win. LibDems to take Woking was another etc.

    I made a lot of money on the US elections, spread betting on Biden when everyone went into flat panic mode based on a sub-set of latino votes in Florida. I went against the market trend and made a lot of money.

    Biggest fuck up from me? It wasn't a bet. It was saying the invasion wouldn't happen.

    I've no idea what your point was really and I suspect you don't either.
    If you didn't understand the point, then you can't have read many of Mike's headers as he's made the point repeatedly.

    If you're winning all your bets in a period of time, then that is just dumb luck it isn't smart. Smart political betting isn't about getting all your bets to win, as no gambler will win all their bets, if they did it wouldn't be gambling.

    Political betting is about finding value.
    I've never seen you make a betting post. Ever. All you ever seem to do is post right-wing, and sometimes quite nasty, rants and personal attacks on me.

    So when you make betting posts and are seen to win I will take notice.

    You are of course talking illogical rubbish. If I happen to find value and win that's great betting. There's nothing smart about losing.

    I'm on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper as Next PM at odds over 100/1. If that's not a gamble I don't know what the hell is. And they will probably lose but they're value imho.

    But you're very close to your aim Phillip of hounding me off this board. Were it not for Big G's nice polite comment I would have given up earlier. I am sick and tired of your bullying, nasty, attacks on me.
    I keep an eye on this forum as I like seeing how UK political thought evolves.

    Mr Roberts' attacks on you seem to me to be totally unnecessary and as you say nasty. I am not surprised you feel like leaving here when he is being so vicious towards you. What did you say to wind him up or is he just a very unpleasant person?

    Play fair people. I see Heatherners posts and think she makes a lot of very sensible points and has come out with some very good tips. That Liberal Democrat win in Woking was impressive.

    She just goes a bit over the top on the female and left winger guff but being in a minority probably makes her defensive.
    Thank you.

    I annoyed BR because I named him from his previous iteration on here and called him out for his comments on Northern Ireland, which I thought were vile. He has never got over it.

    I'm on the verge of giving up on pb. It's a bear pit. A very tough place to be a woman and one left-of-centre at that. I find the only way to keep my head above water on here is to try to fight (Leon) but it's grinding me down.
This discussion has been closed.