Best Of

"Labour should atone for its gambling sins
Law that super-charged our betting habit 20 years ago has led to huge societal problems — and vast company profits
Janice Turner" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/labour-atone-gambling-sins-zfqhqvmjm

"Gambling is good and a sign of a free people" - viewcode

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5287909/#Comment_5287909

It's pretty sick that that headline in the Times (which may or may not be down to Janice Turner) uses 'vast company profits' pejoratively.

Indeed. God forbid a company should make profits! This is Britain after all

How much of their profits are coming from UK customers? Bet365 are alleged that their "vast company profits" come mostly from Asia.

Meanwhile Denise Coates alone pays £300m or £400m a year in income tax.

Has the government actually thought through what they might propose? I think that’s a rhetorical question.

I don't suppose many people think of Bet365 as a leading UK exporter

Opinium

Reform 31% (-1)
Labour 22% (-3)
Tories 17% (=)
Lib Dems 13% (=)
Greens 9% (+1)

https://x.com/PolliticoUK/status/1954257986299244579

https://xcancel.com/LeftieStats/status/1954270518670164280#m

One thing that map illustrates is just how urbanised the rump Labour vote is

Not sure that it does.

This is under FPTP, with the leading party (Reform) on 31%. It's the split opposition that creates this map. A map of second places might be much less urban for Labour.

This is a map of second places from last year. Lots of red in the shires:

https://worldmapper.org/maps/uk-general-election-2024-second-placed-parties/#&gid=1&pid=1

@antoguerrera
BREAKING 🇬🇧 🇫🇷 🇮🇹 🇵🇱 🇪🇺 🇫🇮 🇩🇪

Statement by President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Tusk, Prime Minister Starmer, President von der Leyen and President Stubb on Peace for Ukraine ahead of President Trump’s planned meeting with President Putin

We welcome President Trump’s work to stop the killing in Ukraine, end the Russian Federation’s war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace and security for Ukraine.
We are convinced that only an approach that combines active diplomacy, support to Ukraine and pressure on the Russian Federation to end their illegal war can succeed.
We stand ready to support this work diplomatically as well as by upholding our substantive military and financial support to Ukraine, including through the work of the Coalition of the Willing, and by upholding and imposing restrictive measures against the Russian Federation.
We share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine’s and Europe’s vital security interests.
We agree that these vital interests include the need for robust and credible security guarantees that enable Ukraine to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.
We reiterate that Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Memorandum, and successive Russian commitments. We underline our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
We continue to stand firmly by the side of Ukraine. We are united as Europeans and determined to jointly promote our interests. And we will continue to cooperate closely with President Trump and with the United States of America, and with President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine, for a peace in Ukraine that protects our vital security interests.

ENDS

What a load of waffly bollocks. I’m sure the people of Luhansk and Donetsk will feel a whole lot safer reading that. The current line of contact should not be the starting point of negotiations. The pre war boundary should be. Then they can negotiate about handing Crimea back to Ukraine, and about reparations to Ukraine.

And the chances of Putin agreeing to that...less than zero

Which is why we need to support Ukraine until Putin is defeated.

Fat chance of that anytime soon, Ukraine couldn't even defeat Putin and force the Russians out of Ukraine when they had military aid from the US via Biden let alone now Trump is withdrawing US military aid to Zelensky

Russia is the invader not Ukraine and its much tougher to maintain an invasion than it is to defend your homeland.

Just ask America in Afghanistan, or Russia there too.

Russia is bleeding men and money and Europe has deeper pockets than Russia with or without America. Even if America pulls out of supporting Ukraine, we can and should step up to the plate until Putin is defeated.

Does it? European voters certainly aren't willing to cut public services and welfare funding to send missiles to Ukraine and Putin knows it.

They might just about fund maintaining the status quo but that is it

Well the facts- massive increases in defence spending, the return of conscription and huge multi billion Euro assistance programs- suggest that they are notvas decadent as you seem to think. European voters recognise that they will have to maintain these policies until Russia (and Trump) ceases to be a threat.

Witkoff’s proposal is not a runner, in any case.

Ukraine would have to give up several fair-sized towns and evacuate their populations, from Donetsk Oblast. And Russia would have to give up Melitopol and sacrifice the land bridge connecting Crimea to the rest of Russian-seized territory.

"Labour should atone for its gambling sins
Law that super-charged our betting habit 20 years ago has led to huge societal problems — and vast company profits
Janice Turner" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/labour-atone-gambling-sins-zfqhqvmjm

"Gambling is good and a sign of a free people" - viewcode

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5287909/#Comment_5287909

It's pretty sick that that headline in the Times (which may or may not be down to Janice Turner) uses 'vast company profits' pejoratively.

Indeed. God forbid a company should make profits! This is Britain after all

How much of their profits are coming from UK customers? Bet365 are alleged that their "vast company profits" come mostly from Asia.

Meanwhile Denise Coates alone pays £300m or £400m a year in income tax.

Has the government actually thought through what they might propose? I think that’s a rhetorical question.

Bet365 voluntarily left China this year. I can only think of two good reasons, they are thinking of floating or having regulatory issues over their grey market betting, possibly in the US.

"Labour should atone for its gambling sins
Law that super-charged our betting habit 20 years ago has led to huge societal problems — and vast company profits
Janice Turner" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/labour-atone-gambling-sins-zfqhqvmjm

"Gambling is good and a sign of a free people" - viewcode

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5287909/#Comment_5287909

It's pretty sick that that headline in the Times (which may or may not be down to Janice Turner) uses 'vast company profits' pejoratively.

Indeed. God forbid a company should make profits! This is Britain after all

How much of their profits are coming from UK customers? Bet365 are alleged that their "vast company profits" come mostly from Asia.

Meanwhile Denise Coates alone pays £300m or £400m a year in income tax.

Has the government actually thought through what they might propose? I think that’s a rhetorical question.

Opinium

Reform 31% (-1)
Labour 22% (-3)
Tories 17% (=)
Lib Dems 13% (=)
Greens 9% (+1)

https://x.com/PolliticoUK/status/1954257986299244579

https://xcancel.com/LeftieStats/status/1954270518670164280#m

There's a great piece of analysis of voter movements in the year since the GE here:

https://bsky.app/profile/dylandifford.bsky.social/post/3lvy2ztfbu22p

There are a couple of interesting nuggets:

The pool of potential future defectors from Labour is massively skewed. Just 5% of still Labour-ers see Reform as a potential vote, while around half are open to voting LD or Green. Even among Labour to DKs, twice as many would consider LD or Grns than Reform.

(1.8 million Lab voters have moved to LD or Green, compared to 700 000 to Reform. The threat to Labour is not from direct switchers to Reform, but rather its left flank)

Labour to Reform UK defectors are hugely skewed in two ways that is contrary to certain myths about them - they are disproportionately 2019 Conservatives (not forever red Labourites) and much more Scottish than average Labour voter. Probably some overlap here too.

(So the Scottish Reform surge seems to be from SLAB, and indirectly from 2019 SCon, showing the flexibility of the Scottish Unionist vote.)

And for the Tories it looks grim.

Demographics also continue to work against them. 2.8% of their 2024 coalition have already died, a rate unlike any other party in absolute or relative terms. The Tories are also not attracting any new voters (~25k first time voters), not much more than the SNP and PC (~15k).