I had a look at Political Betting (aka Stormfront Lite) for the first time in ages today, and there's a post from the site's editor TSE, who I believe self-identifies as a "moderate" or "centrist" Tory, and which makes me wonder if the political Right even inhabit the same planet as the rest of us.
He feels the need from the outset to defend himself from the ridicule he expects from his peers, because he has placed a bet on Jeremy Corbyn or Zarah Sultana to become Prime Minister at odds of 100/1. He stresses this is merely a "trading bet" (with the unspoken implication that it might make a profit simply because other people will in future be stupid enough to start thinking Corbyn or Sultana could win an election), and states as a fact, as if it's something that everyone just "knows", that Corbyn is a "much diminished figure since 2017" because of his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings.
I mean, what?! When I think of Jeremy Corbyn, there are probably about 500 things that would pop into my head about him long before I'd even remember anything to do with his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings. He's quite clearly not a diminished figure, his reputation has in fact grown and grown as he's been shown to be on the right side of history in respect of Israel and Palestine, and as his detractors during the confected "anti-semitism crisis" have been shown to be on the wrong side of history. His spectacular success in defeating the Labour machine in Islington last year has also greatly enhanced his track record as an electoral winner.
But if you said to someone like TSE that Corbyn's principled stance on the gravest crime against humanity of the 21st century might possibly have some relevance to his current public standing, you'd just get a blank look. The notion has probably never even occurred to TSE, who it appears shut down all thought after the Salisbury incident, which is as fresh in his mind as if it happened yesterday.
TSE even tries to pour cold water on Corbyn's electoral achievement in 2017, when he became the only Labour leader to top 40% of the popular vote in a general election since 2001. Apparently that doesn't really count for anything because the Tories "ran the worst campaign in living memory" in 2017. Well, that's a subjective call, but I very much doubt that any alternative Labour leader would have reached anything like 40% of the vote that year, because Corbyn was gobbling up Green and other radical leftist votes that a centrist leader would never have been able to reach.
I don't think it's particularly likely that Corbyn or Sultana will become Prime Minister, but for a 100/1 bet to be considered value, the real probability only needs to exceed 1%. Given that Zack Polanski seems to be open to an electoral pact with Corbyn/Sultana, and that it's reasonable to suppose that such an alliance might attract 15% of the vote at a time when the leading party is usually only in the 20s, it seems entirely logical that one of the leaders of that alliance could well have a better than 1% chance of forming a government. It's a perfectly sensible bet - not even as a trading bet, but just on its own terms.
What about the Salisbury poisonings? There has been more technical detail which has emerged since the original, saturation propaganda carried by the BBC and every mainstream media outlet.
ReplyDeleteThe Executive Summary from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, report mentions the American, non-lethal, chemical weapon, BZ as being present in the samples supplied (without a full chain of custody) as being the Skripal’s blood.
When Sergei Lavrov pointed this out, it initiated a brouhaha on X, with a British “Diplomat” claiming that BZ was present only as an “environmental control sample” (spike sample in common parlance). This is utterly preposterous. In no universe would BZ be an appropriate spike sample for Novichok. Novichok itself would be the best compound from which to prepare a spike, but other organophosphates could be used for example, VX.
The obvious inference for the presence of BZ in the blood samples, is that the samples supplied to the OftPoCW were indeed blood from the Skripal’s, but that they had been spiked with Novichok somewhere along the chain of custody.
A bet at 100-1 based "I don't think it's particularly likely that Corbyn or Sultana will become Prime Minister" is wasted money. Even at 100-1. Corbyn is a brit centralist - he wish Irish unification/ independence even Palestine but all of his being wants Scotland in England. I have to say that the links with the UNITE TU leadership is another no for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but you clearly don't understand the concept of value in betting. If you think there's a 96% chance of something not happening, but the odds imply there's a 99% chance of it not happening, that's a value bet. If you place a series of genuine value bets over a period of time, you'll end up with a net profit.
Delete'Corbyn is not a "diminished figure"': agreed, and I say that as someone well to the right of him who would never vote for any party led by him.
ReplyDeleteThe Salisbury stuff - that's bonkers. I can't remotely recall what he said or what his stance was. Most voters will be the same. Salience = virtually nil.
When it comes to politics I try and divorce my own ideological orientation and try to analyse as objectively as I can (always that'll be highly imperfect, remain subjective etc. etc. but as best I can). That's really hard in the case of this new party since all my instincts are that it'll flop badly and be irrelevant, but maybe that just reflects my instinctive hostility to it? Probably I won't be placing any bets either way!
We live under the control of the most successful dictatorship in world history, they will use their media to destroy Corbyn whenever or if ever they think they need to
ReplyDeleteIf he embarrasses them they'll proscribe him or have their supreme court rule that he is whatever they say he is
It's what England under the guise of Britishness does