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.
What happened to the Skripals if what you say is true, and who would spike the samples during the chain of custody? I say this as someone who agreed with Corbyn on his stance on Ireland and Iraq. In the case of the Salisbury incident he was manipulated into being seen to say more than he meant to say. He was cautioning against knee jerk reaction before full investigation, and the scummy U K media, especially the B B C and MSM, took it from there. Corbyn’s open mindedness and his understanding of the fundamental dishonesty of the British state is his weakness and his strength. Unfortunately it is a failing in anyone seeking a position of leadership. His new party, such as it is, will bomb accordingly. Pun intended.
DeleteThe following is speculation, but it fits the indisputable facts and timeline.
DeleteThe Skripals agreed to be “Buzzed”. This being the colloquial term for someone who has been dosed with BZ. They did this on the understanding that immediate medical attention would be available (the highest ranked Nurse in the British Army just happened to be the first passer-by on the scene).
Old Sergei had gotten up to mischief, and broken the terms of his asylum deal. His SIS Handler, Pablo Miller found out and demanded reparation from Sergei in the form of a staged, false flag op to embarrass Putin. Sergei pointed out that his daughter was still in Moscow and was subject to possible retaliation from Vlad. Yulia had to be in Salisbury when the ruse was pulled on the Russkies. That way, both Skripals could be given new identities and put into witness protection (New Zealand is rumoured to be the present whereabouts).
Boris and Ivan the “KGB” thugs were real, but they were lured into visiting Salisbury under false pretexts.
The blood samples from the Skripals, taken by a legitimate NHS Phlebotomist, contained BZ and only BZ. These were doctored with the addition of Novichok before being handed over to the OftPoCW (presumably by MI6). Porton Down is just along the road from Salisbury.
Wouldn't mushrooms be easier?
ReplyDeleteA 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
Wow, Dr Jim went a whole comment without saying that everyone in the world thinks of Alex Salmond as the devo max guy
DeleteDoes the Dr in Dr Jim stand for Devomax rant?
DeleteIf the next WM election is effectively a binary choice between Farage or Corbyn for PM, will the SNP miss yet another gilt edged opportunity to push for independence or will they pointlessly grumble away in the background like usual?
ReplyDeleteTbh, I would be very tempted to vote for Corbyn’s party in the next general election, especially if it was polling well. They couldn’t be less interested in independence than Swinney is. A bit of blood red left populism is just what England needs. So long as we have no effective independence vehicle here in Scotland, we’re tied at the hip and I’d rather they went alt left than alt right.
DeleteInteresting -
ReplyDelete'A prominent member of the project to bring Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s political party to life in Scotland has lifted the lid on the organisation – and revealed the fledgling party’s constitutional stance.
Jim Monaghan, a member of the Collective Scotland group which is in the process of setting up the as-yet-unnamed party’s Scottish branch, said that “electoral success is why we’re forming a political party” despite previous failures to build broad-church socialist groups.
He said that the party would start from the position of backing the Scottish Parliament’s right to hold indyref2 – but that members and candidates could be for or against independence itself.'
Mr Corbyn spent a long time as the councillor for Yidishire in N London and possibly supporting Totenham Hotspur. For the last decade I guess he has been gardening and cooking. The Sultana thing is quite funny.
ReplyDelete