BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do.
At my rowing club, we have 14 year olds who turn up at 6:30 each morning to row before school.
Some of them are winning stuff already. There are a couple of them who will probably end up in a national boat.
Success in sport is usually apparent at very young ages. Richard Hill (world cup winning flanker) was in my year at school and was clearly always going to make it as a rugby player. Played for the first team aged 14 (I think), so up to 4 years younger than many of them. Mo Farah won the mini London Marathon.
You get a combination of a kid being really really good at something, combine it with lots of training and a lot of luck.
I don't fully buy into Matthew Saed's idea of the 10,000 hours (or whatever number it is). Most people could put in the training but still wouldn't reach elite level. I used to run all the time, trained a lot and never ran faster than 54 minutes for a 10K. My body simply did not allow me to run fast. There is an envelope of what you can achieve - training will allow you to reach your limit, but not go beyond and if that limit isn't enough, you don't make it.
Isn't the 10000 hrs to do with acquiring the skill. I mean if you are 4 ft 6 inches you are never going to win the high jump. Also I think it makes you expert not the best.
Although I think a lot of it is luck with the sport you pick and the hours you put, in genetics is obviously very key. At Uni I knew Alistair Hignell's brother. Between the 3 siblings they represented their country or country in 5 sports. Talk about greedy
The life expectancy thing must be wrong as we are told the nhs is institutionally racist. Either that or it is showing that the nhs lowers your life expectancy the more it cares about you
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
yes you are right, there’s more than one economic approach abroad in the Tory Party, it’s not simply Tory v Labour, it’s whose in charge of Tory versus whose in charge of labour, Sunak Hunt v Starmer Reeves what is Parties official policy. Looking at her phone messages, Braverman probably brings an alternate policy to the cabinet table.
But when you say “ Hunt is just doing as he's told” by who, and for what reason? My view is inflation killing recession kills the racketeering Greedinflation hiding in it at same time, so we should all back Hunt for this sensible reason? I’m excited to hear him he say it, providing he actually does it and not disconnect between say and do.
The life expectancy thing must be wrong as we are told the nhs is institutionally racist. Either that or it is showing that the nhs lowers your life expectancy the more it cares about you
Are you this unrelentingly negative in the rest of your life Pagan2, or just on here? Something to think about maybe?
sighs it is negative to make a comment on stats someone posts now? I suggest you just skip my posts if you dont like them as I don't really give a toss what you think
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
Looks to me like the Tory party has pretty much destroyed itself, since 2015.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
You also have to account for the amount of practice. People have favourite doubles and also practice hitting the bullseye. So it may be *smaller* and yet still *easier* for practiced players.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
No it's harder - the place erupts when I pull it off.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
If you can actually aim (unlike me) the shape of the target must matter I would think. A circle must be easier to hit than a strip. This would not be true if random so in my case it wouldn't make any difference, but for a skilled thrower it must. All to do with the area around the target within certain distances from the target. A strip will have more than a circle.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
It is a double for the purposes of a finish. It's classed as double 25 (25 being the score for the outer bull).
Reclaims the PB darts crown less than half an hour after losing it.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
If you can actually aim (unlike me) the shape of the target must matter I would think. A circle must be easier to hit than a strip. This would not be true if random so in my case it wouldn't make any difference, but for a skilled thrower it must. All to do with the area around the target within certain distances from the target. A strip will have more than a circle.
I guess it depends on whether the deviation from point of aim is greater vertically or horizontally, a bulleye being 12.8 mm vertically and horizontally whereas a double is 8mm top to bottom
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
If you can actually aim (unlike me) the shape of the target must matter I would think. A circle must be easier to hit than a strip. This would not be true if random so in my case it wouldn't make any difference, but for a skilled thrower it must. All to do with the area around the target within certain distances from the target. A strip will have more than a circle.
I assume that off topic is a fat finger cos I don't see why everyone else can talk about darts and not me. Admittedly I know nothing about it but that has never stopped anyone else here before.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
It is a double for the purposes of a finish. It's classed as double 25 (25 being the score for the outer bull).
Reclaims the PB darts crown less than half an hour after losing it.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
If you can actually aim (unlike me) the shape of the target must matter I would think. A circle must be easier to hit than a strip. This would not be true if random so in my case it wouldn't make any difference, but for a skilled thrower it must. All to do with the area around the target within certain distances from the target. A strip will have more than a circle.
I assume that off topic is a fat finger cos I don't see why everyone else can talk about darts and not me. Admittedly I know nothing about it but that has never stopped anyone else here before.
I know nothing about it either but didnt get off topiced so I think you can assume its a fat finger...or you have a pb nemesis
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
Looks to me like the Tory party has pretty much destroyed itself, since 2015.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
I think those of us who lived through the Labour party split, the Gang of Four, the SDP, the elections of the 1980s, especially 1983, and who then contemplate who is likely to lead the next UK government will be slow to write off either the Tory or the Labour party.
For either of them to disappear as a potential government party requires the emergence of a genuine alternative in a multi party democracy. The barriers to entry are set extremely high.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The same could be said for food addiction which is where I suspect you are likely to be told you are wrong.
FWIW I tend to agree with you and far too many "addictions" these days are not addictions but lack of self control, further examples would be video gaming and social media
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
Looks to me like the Tory party has pretty much destroyed itself, since 2015.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
People said the same about the Tories after 1997 or Labour after 2019 and 1983 but FPTP means the pendulum will always turn.
Only if we had PR and Labour split into Blairite and Corbynite wings and the Tories split between Cameroon and ERG wings would neither win majorities again
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
If you can actually aim (unlike me) the shape of the target must matter I would think. A circle must be easier to hit than a strip. This would not be true if random so in my case it wouldn't make any difference, but for a skilled thrower it must. All to do with the area around the target within certain distances from the target. A strip will have more than a circle.
I assume that off topic is a fat finger cos I don't see why everyone else can talk about darts and not me. Admittedly I know nothing about it but that has never stopped anyone else here before.
I was so tempted to off topic this post for a laugh But I have never off topiced anyone in all my years on PB and don't intend to start now even as a joke. It is the one feature I really dislike about this chat engine. I think it is pointless and is only ever used maliciously.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
DeSantis launch went better for him than the consensus I think, it certainly talked about and we all know the thing in politics worse than being talked about.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
I don't know what the article says because it's behind a paywall, but the ONS suggests a potential reason for the differences in life expectancy between different ethnic groups in the UK is that some groups contain more recent migrants than others, and migrants tend to be healthier on average.
Looking at the US and UK comparisons, it seems plausible that is playing a role.
I was just about to ask about that one as it surprised me.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
Looks to me like the Tory party has pretty much destroyed itself, since 2015.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
People said the same about the Tories after 1997 or Labour after 2019 and 1983 but FPTP means the pendulum will always turn.
Only if we had PR and Labour split into Blairite and Corbynite wings and the Tories split between Cameroon and ERG wings would neither win majorities again
They said the same about the Tories after Repeal of the Corn Laws and the Liberal landslide of 1906 - I think almost every democracy in western Europe and beyond have centre left and right parties on a 30% base which oscillates back and forth like the neap tides with the occasional spring. It's unlikely to change much for the forseeable future imho!
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
I used to like cricket as a darts game.
As PBs expert Kinabalu
Whats the least possible number of darts to win that game?
Ah so it seems I relinquish the title (after a reign of only 25 minutes) since I had to bing that one and I can't even guess the answer. Sounds a terrific variation though.
Targets are only 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and the Bull. Once a player gets three marks, the number will be open to them only. A player scores points by hitting the area he/she opened. You can void your opponent's open area by getting three marks on the number. The player with the highest score when all numbers are closed or at the round limit, wins.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
DeSantis launch went better for him than the consensus I think, it certainly talked about and we all know the thing in politics worse than being talked about.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
Looks to me like the Tory party has pretty much destroyed itself, since 2015.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
People said the same about the Tories after 1997 or Labour after 2019 and 1983 but FPTP means the pendulum will always turn.
Only if we had PR and Labour split into Blairite and Corbynite wings and the Tories split between Cameroon and ERG wings would neither win majorities again
They said the same about the Tories after Repeal of the Corn Laws and the Liberal landslide of 1906 - I think almost every democracy in western Europe and beyond have centre left and right parties on a 30% base which oscillates back and forth like the neap tides with the occasional spring. It's unlikely to change much for the forseeable future imho!
Albeit in France the Socialists have now been overtaken by Melenchon's party and the conservatives by Le Pen's party with both squeezed by Macron's party. In Italy Meloni's party has overtaken Forza Italia as the main party of the right and in Canada in 1993 the Reform Party overtook the Progressive Conservatives as the main party of the right until they merged in 2003. In Greece too Syriza overtook Pasok as the main party of the left.
So centre right or centre left parties can fall back out of the top 2 but normally only if overtaken by a more hardline right or left party, especially under non FPTP systems
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
The French system but with the possibility of laying into the market too.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
It is a double for the purposes of a finish. It's classed as double 25 (25 being the score for the outer bull).
Reclaims the PB darts crown less than half an hour after losing it.
Dedicated to the memory of Martin Amis
I was just thinking that - Keith Talent! Money was his masterpiece imo but London Fields was also a riot.
Apologies for me showing my ignorance here. What does Net Fiscal Balance actually mean?
A STATISTICS QUESTION!
(jumps up and down with glee)
The net fiscal balance is the difference between expenditure and revenue. If more is spent than recieved, then that is a net fiscal deficit. The UK's net fiscal deficit for 2022 was £122.1 billion, because it spent £122.1 billion more than it received.
You can do that sum not just for the whole UK but also for the twelve countries and regions of the UK. Which is what that graph was for.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
I used to like cricket as a darts game.
As PBs expert Kinabalu
Whats the least possible number of darts to win that game?
Ah so it seems I relinquish the title (after a reign of only 25 minutes) since I had to bing that one and I can't even guess the answer. Sounds a terrific variation though.
Targets are only 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and the Bull. Once a player gets three marks, the number will be open to them only. A player scores points by hitting the area he/she opened. You can void your opponent's open area by getting three marks on the number. The player with the highest score when all numbers are closed or at the round limit, wins.
Absolutely brilliant. Next time I'm at Ye Olde Progressive Arms I'll seek to introduce this to the brethren.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If this were put into effect - literally - then the maths means that a long enough entirely random series of bets made by anyone will come out at Zero gains, Zero losses.
The commercial consequences of this are obvious. The logic of the suggestion is fine - and it works fine for private use, but the industry would not exist in anything like its current form.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Was it not “it’s not working unless it’s hurting”?
Jeremy Hunt has expertly opened up clear blue water with Labour, and put Labour on the back foot today hasn’t he, making them look like dangerous Trussite idiots. Labours Growth, Growth and yes, more growth of Reeves speech is now so yesterday, so wrong, so out of step with Hunt and Sunak, without beating inflation first before stoking all that heat in the economy to make us number one for growth in G7.
How many days until Starmer and Reeves announce they too support BoE interest rates and Hunt’s withdrawing of credit support to UK, to engineer that recession?
This is a big moment, a big story, I don’t know why PB babbling so much nothing and nonsense instead this morning, is this what happens when the suns out, it’s all gone “tits out for Whitsun” 🤷♀️
Alternatively, Hunt is just doing as he's told, an engineered recession is on the cards, it won't matter to him because he won't be in office, and he doesn't give a monkeys about its impact on the electoral fortunes of the Tory Party, because he hates the party and the party hates him.
Looks to me like the Tory party has pretty much destroyed itself, since 2015.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
Only if the voting system improves.
I heard this about Labour in the 1980s, and the Tories in the 2000s, and then about Labour again in the 2010s. The arguments sound convincing each time, but only because seeing changes the future tends to bring is difficult.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
The French system but with the possibility of laying into the market too.
A Government run bookies would be first in history to make sustained massive losses.
That would be an awkward result, similar to 2017 where Union-FDP-Greens failed to negotiate a coalition, leaving another Union-SPD grand coalition as the only option - which nobody wanted especially not the SPD.
There's a big block of very floaty voters in Germany who will consider voting any of CDU or SPD or Green, at least outside Bavaria and the new Bundesländer where things are a bit different. Together they are on about 63% in this poll, which is pretty normal - they got nearly 65% between them at the last election.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
None. There'd be no betting industry. Like any other it has to make money.. Although if it were deemed an essential public good (like healthcare) the government could perhaps provide it on a no-profit basis. Better odds for punters, break even so no impact of the deficit. Worth thinking about. The Tote (for racing) is kind of a template. Renationalize and extend to all sports?
DeSantis launch went better for him than the consensus I think, it certainly talked about and we all know the thing in politics worse than being talked about.
Labour's 2017 manifesto says "yep I know what you mean".
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
Deep waters here.
There is a fight by pressure groups for X to be recognised as a medical condition of some sort. The reason is simple: once X is a medical condition then: It isn't your fault; Moral considerations are transferred to others and away from you; It isn't a crime and you can't be sent to prison for it; The taxpayer must pay to treat you; You mustn't be discriminated against on account of it; You get to start a worthless charity with employees and salaries; You appear on R4 Today.
More deep waters. For all I know bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles have as good a claim to be medicalised on account of their activities as fat people, gambling addicts, attention disorder people, narcissists, psychotics, autism sufferers, alcoholics etc.
There is no real test for these things except politics, popularity, pragmatism and power.
PS Obvs posting on PB deserves its own medical recognition.
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
He does have a bit of a “nanny” air to him.
Oh well, better than the Kindergarden with the current lot……
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Bull, treble 13, tops
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaame shot
If you hit 25 first dart, still got treble 18 bull as an option
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
He does have a bit of a “nanny” air to him.
Oh well, better than the Kindergarden with the current lot……
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Bull, treble 13, tops
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaame shot
If you hit 25 first dart, still got treble 18 bull as an option
BREAKING: Transgender women will be banned from competing in British Cycling’s competitive women’s events in changes that will see the men’s category become an open one.
Seems a sensible approach. There is too much potential advantage in having gone through puberty as a male then transitioning, even if current testosterone levels are lowered, the physique has developed. Should be the case in any sport where physique matters.
The funny thing is that sex matters even when physique does not. The world darts champion is a bloke; likewise snooker and various motor sports. Lack of opportunity? Role models? Discrimination?
If I were running a girls' school (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) I'd invest in a dartboard and snooker table.
Prowess in darts comes from devoting your adolescence to it. Hours and hours every day, on the oche throwing arrows at that board. It's intense and takes a mono-minded dedication, eschewing all else.
"You coming to the park, we're going boating?" "No, I've got darts. Working on my double tops."
If girls were to start doing this in numbers I have little doubt it wouldn't be long before there'd be a Moira Van Gherkin.
Most sports require that sort of dedication I suspect if you want to get to the top
They do. But the venues for darts aren't typically that female-oriented. Hence why Decrepiter's idea of getting oches and boards into girls schools could pay dividends.
Would do wonders for their mental arithmetic!
Yep. 5 seconds max to compute how to close out 129 finishing on your favourite double. And no calculators allowed. Soon sort the wheat from the chaff.
And the answer is?
Well I'd go treble 20, single 19, BULL.
Is the bull easier than a double?
bull is apparently only 2.8% of the dartboard area according to google but cant imagine a double isnt bigger though cant find a percentage for it
If you can actually aim (unlike me) the shape of the target must matter I would think. A circle must be easier to hit than a strip. This would not be true if random so in my case it wouldn't make any difference, but for a skilled thrower it must. All to do with the area around the target within certain distances from the target. A strip will have more than a circle.
I assume that off topic is a fat finger cos I don't see why everyone else can talk about darts and not me. Admittedly I know nothing about it but that has never stopped anyone else here before.
I was so tempted to off topic this post for a laugh But I have never off topiced anyone in all my years on PB and don't intend to start now even as a joke. It is the one feature I really dislike about this chat engine. I think it is pointless and is only ever used maliciously.
I never worry about "Off Topics". I suspect that most of mine come from PB's version of Vernon Dursley...
Boris Johnson has been given until the end of next week by MPs to explain why he believes that he did not break lockdown rules at Chequers and at previously unknown events in Downing Street.
As well as referring claims against Johnson to two police forces last week, the Cabinet Office passed the allegations to the privileges committee. The committee is in the final stages of its investigation into whether the former prime minister misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties.....
....The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, is still determined to have completed its work by the time MPs leave parliament for their summer recess on July 20. Their draft report is likely to be complete by the end of June. Johnson will be sent any extracts that criticise him and be given a two-week period to submit a written response.
Don't care. Yes, egregious act, he made the rules, blah, blah but I think the country wants to move on from was there a glass of wine within 3.576 metres from your right hand on 4th May, etc.
The people trying to re-litigate the pandemic, are just as bad as those trying to re-litigate the Brexit decision. We are where we are, let’s spend the effort working out how to make the country better in the future.
The Inquiry is going to test your patience then.
The inquiry is really important for looking at the public policy reactions to the next emergency.
It shouldn’t be there to try and dissect minute-by-minute what individual politicians were doing, nor to attempt to blame individuals for mistakes they made under pressure.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
Deep waters here.
There is a fight by pressure groups for X to be recognised as a medical condition of some sort. The reason is simple: once X is a medical condition then: It isn't your fault; Moral considerations are transferred to others and away from you; It isn't a crime and you can't be sent to prison for it; The taxpayer must pay to treat you; You mustn't be discriminated against on account of it; You get to start a worthless charity with employees and salaries; You appear on R4 Today.
More deep waters. For all I know bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles have as good a claim to be medicalised on account of their activities as fat people, gambling addicts, attention disorder people, narcissists, psychotics, autism sufferers, alcoholics etc.
There is no real test for these things except politics, popularity, pragmatism and power.
PS Obvs posting on PB deserves its own medical recognition.
I knew a man who stole £14m to fund a gambling addiction (actually, I suspect he stole a lot more, and much of the money was salted away in the IOM and Israel). He would have just loved to be able to present himself as a victim.
He might just as well not have been punished, since he only spent 4 years in a variety of minimum security presions.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If this were put into effect - literally - then the maths means that a long enough entirely random series of bets made by anyone will come out at Zero gains, Zero losses.
The commercial consequences of this are obvious. The logic of the suggestion is fine - and it works fine for private use, but the industry would not exist in anything like its current form.
Gambling would be run by organised crime. The US' prohibition on off track betting is basically just a subsidy to organised crime and associated loan sharks.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
There’s some very interesting thinking happening on the right, too. Louise Perry, one of the stars of the Nat-C conference, for example.
Has anyone ever confessed to being a gambling addict when they win the majority of their bets (which I know is unlikely)?
Not really, since I assume (and worry) I will always lose my stake and thus try and trade to win on any outcome. Also, I only ever bet what I can afford to lose.
The stupid bets I make - that I never learn from - are on Eurovision and sport.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
I'd keep those, but I'd ban bookmakers from discriminating against successful punters and trying to keep only mugs.
Stake restrictions on successful punters, and account restrictions on being able to use marketing promotions like 'free bets if you do x' should be banned.
A lot of restrictions the bookmakers do on successful punters is so they can be more predatory towards others without exposing their flank to people who might do well. That's not a level playing field.
Bookmakers should be able to set out their stall, and offer odds or promotions, but everyone including those who are successful should be able to take part as a result. If that means that the bookmaker needs to be less predatory towards mugs in order to avoid sharks, then so be it.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
No-one is really talking about debt anymore (as Cameron/Osborne did in 2010-2013 in particular) but it's far worse than then and we're spending almost as much on it as we are on the NHS.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
Hence why I'm deeply unimpressed with the "it's all about growth" mantra. Easy to say but only true if that 'growth' is sustainable and non-inflationary.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
No-one is really talking about debt anymore (as Cameron/Osborne did in 2010-2013 in particular) but it's far worse than then and we're spending almost as much on it as we are on the NHS.
Our response to Covid cost us almost 20% of our GDP in debt and moved us from bad to terrible. Cameron's theory was to fix the roof when the sun was shining but it has, in fairness, been very overcast for a lot of years now, with the odd torrent.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
No-one is really talking about debt anymore (as Cameron/Osborne did in 2010-2013 in particular) but it's far worse than then and we're spending almost as much on it as we are on the NHS.
Our response to Covid cost us almost 20% of our GDP in debt and moved us from bad to terrible. Cameron's theory was to fix the roof when the sun was shining but it has, in fairness, been very overcast for a lot of years now, with the odd torrent.
You'd have thought this would be a profitable political line of attack by Sunak to put Labour on the back foot, but maybe he feels constrained by Covid and Truss.
I'd still roll the dice on it though. Labour can't rack it up and tax is, obviously, the place they'll go to on top of a record tax burden.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
There’s some very interesting thinking happening on the right, too. Louise Perry, one of the stars of the Nat-C conference, for example.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
No-one is really talking about debt anymore (as Cameron/Osborne did in 2010-2013 in particular) but it's far worse than then and we're spending almost as much on it as we are on the NHS.
Our response to Covid cost us almost 20% of our GDP in debt and moved us from bad to terrible. Cameron's theory was to fix the roof when the sun was shining but it has, in fairness, been very overcast for a lot of years now, with the odd torrent.
You'd have thought this would be a profitable political line of attack by Sunak to put Labour on the back foot, but maybe he feels constrained by Covid and Truss.
I'd still roll the dice on it though. Labour can't rack it up and tax is, obviously, the place they'll go to on top of a record tax burden.
They will tax businesses and wealth creators until the pips squeak and the economy is well and truly fecked. This iteration of the Labour Party only cares about the public sector because they do not understand business and nor do they want to.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
Hence why I'm deeply unimpressed with the "it's all about growth" mantra. Easy to say but only true if that 'growth' is sustainable and non-inflationary.
Yes, absolutely. It really depends on where you are starting from. What Truss and her few supporters seemed determined to refuse to acknowledge was that we are starting in a very bad place with debt already creeping up to 100% of GDP. If debt was, say, 30% of GDP there would be room for a much more expansionary policy but we are already dependent on the kindness of strangers and we have to ask them what they think first.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
None. There'd be no betting industry. Like any other it has to make money.. Although if it were deemed an essential public good (like healthcare) the government could perhaps provide it on a no-profit basis. Better odds for punters, break even so no impact of the deficit. Worth thinking about. The Tote (for racing) is kind of a template. Renationalize and extend to all sports?
Not quite true there would still be poker where the house just takes a rake from the pot
Laura Trott - Tory Peter Kyle - Red Tory Munira Wilson LD Janet Street-Porter - Tory Theo Paphitis - Tory Fiona Bruce - Tory
That is from a Corbynite perspective, from a Faragite perspective
Laura Trott - Cameroon Remainer Peter Kyle - Labour Remainer Munira Wilson LD Janet Street-Porter - Remainer Theo Paphitis - Remainer, backed 2nd referendum Fiona Bruce - LD
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
“No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation”
Supporting the Tory recession to tame inflation is certainly not Reeves message this week - number one growth in G7 or bust is the Labour position.
Suddenly there’s clear blue water on exactly the policies Gove said wins or loses elections.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
I'd keep those, but I'd ban bookmakers from discriminating against successful punters and trying to keep only mugs.
Stake restrictions on successful punters, and account restrictions on being able to use marketing promotions like 'free bets if you do x' should be banned.
A lot of restrictions the bookmakers do on successful punters is so they can be more predatory towards others without exposing their flank to people who might do well. That's not a level playing field.
Bookmakers should be able to set out their stall, and offer odds or promotions, but everyone including those who are successful should be able to take part as a result. If that means that the bookmaker needs to be less predatory towards mugs in order to avoid sharks, then so be it.
Not very free market of you, now, is it. I would have thought you would be a champion of people accepting (or rejecting, subject to applicable laws eg discrimination, etc) whatever customers they wanted.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
Deep waters here.
There is a fight by pressure groups for X to be recognised as a medical condition of some sort. The reason is simple: once X is a medical condition then: It isn't your fault; Moral considerations are transferred to others and away from you; It isn't a crime and you can't be sent to prison for it; The taxpayer must pay to treat you; You mustn't be discriminated against on account of it; You get to start a worthless charity with employees and salaries; You appear on R4 Today.
More deep waters. For all I know bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles have as good a claim to be medicalised on account of their activities as fat people, gambling addicts, attention disorder people, narcissists, psychotics, autism sufferers, alcoholics etc.
There is no real test for these things except politics, popularity, pragmatism and power.
PS Obvs posting on PB deserves its own medical recognition.
Yes, and see my prev posts as to how diagnoses of autism should be limited to those that cannot realistically be expected to function. And you make a good point about testing which leads into my argument: the medical paradigm doesn't work in such cases. If we treat gambling addiction as a medical illness, then there will have to be researchers, differential diagnoses, studies, trials of treatments, measurements of success, accuracy of diagnoses, quality of life measurements, so on and so forth. It doesn't fit the paradigm.
Consider. What would the surgical or medical cure for gambling addiction be? Do we get to cut out pieces of brains? Aversion therapy? Conferences in a reasonably good conference centre, with orange juice in the breaks, posters and a quiz night and last-night banquet? Will there be carrot cake?
And all this because a rich man made daft decisions and a shrink wrote him a scrip.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
None. There'd be no betting industry. Like any other it has to make money.. Although if it were deemed an essential public good (like healthcare) the government could perhaps provide it on a no-profit basis. Better odds for punters, break even so no impact of the deficit. Worth thinking about. The Tote (for racing) is kind of a template. Renationalize and extend to all sports?
I always think that one way we could make tax more popular would be to attach a winnings potential to it like the national lottery.
There could also be an element of agency to it too. If you believe even more should be splurged at the NHS then you could opt to pay a higher rate and you could receive a medal called The VSFC (Virtue Signal, First Class) which you could wear on your lapel. This would be very popular amongst Liberal Democrats I think.
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
Deep waters here.
There is a fight by pressure groups for X to be recognised as a medical condition of some sort. The reason is simple: once X is a medical condition then: It isn't your fault; Moral considerations are transferred to others and away from you; It isn't a crime and you can't be sent to prison for it; The taxpayer must pay to treat you; You mustn't be discriminated against on account of it; You get to start a worthless charity with employees and salaries; You appear on R4 Today.
More deep waters. For all I know bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles have as good a claim to be medicalised on account of their activities as fat people, gambling addicts, attention disorder people, narcissists, psychotics, autism sufferers, alcoholics etc.
There is no real test for these things except politics, popularity, pragmatism and power.
PS Obvs posting on PB deserves its own medical recognition.
Yes, and see my prev posts as to how diagnoses of autism should be limited to those that cannot realistically be expected to function. And you make a good point about testing which leads into my argument: the medical paradigm doesn't work in such cases. If we treat gambling addiction as a medical illness, then there will have to be researchers, differential diagnoses, studies, trials of treatments, measurements of success, accuracy of diagnoses, quality of life measurements, so on and so forth. It doesn't fit the paradigm.
Consider. What would the surgical or medical cure for gambling addiction be? Do we get to cut out pieces of brains? Aversion therapy? Conferences in a reasonably good conference centre, with orange juice in the breaks, posters and a quiz night and last-night banquet? Will there be carrot cake?
And all this because a rich man made daft decisions and a shrink wrote him a scrip.
The alternative is to have a too difficult, go away diagnosis like fibromyalgia.
Ban gambling advertising. It might not solve all of the problems, but I think it might help.
"If it's legal you should be able to advocate for it"
(I think its a paraphrase of John Stuart Mill. Apologies if it's Ayn Rand )
"Advocate for" sounds American, hence probably Ayn. It's an interesting point. Are there things which we think are undesirable enough for it to be illegal to promote them, but not so undesirable that practicing them should be illegal (perhaps because we fear a Prohibition effect)? Smoking?
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
Oh sod it, I give up. What is the point of Starmer? The gambling industry generates wealth and a source of taxation. You're supposed to milk the golden goose, not kill it.
Ban gambling advertising. It might not solve all of the problems, but I think it might help.
"If it's legal you should be able to advocate for it"
(I think its a paraphrase of John Stuart Mill. Apologies if it's Ayn Rand )
"Advocate for" sounds American, hence probably Ayn. It's an interesting point. Are there things which we think are undesirable enough for it to be illegal to promote them, but not so undesirable that practicing them should be illegal (perhaps because we fear a Prohibition effect)? Smoking?
I am sure I am not the only person to believe that the proliferation of gambling advertising on evening television is pernicious at the very least
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
Oh sod it, I give up. What is the point of Starmer? The gambling industry generates wealth and a source of taxation. You're supposed to milk the golden goose, not kill it.
Same could be said of the tobacco industry. Indeed it has been argued that smokers not only pay more tax, they also die earlier, thereby being less of a pension burden. Perhaps we should allow unfettered tobacco advertising?
Ban gambling advertising. It might not solve all of the problems, but I think it might help.
"If it's legal you should be able to advocate for it"
(I think its a paraphrase of John Stuart Mill. Apologies if it's Ayn Rand )
"Advocate for" sounds American, hence probably Ayn. It's an interesting point. Are there things which we think are undesirable enough for it to be illegal to promote them, but not so undesirable that practicing them should be illegal (perhaps because we fear a Prohibition effect)? Smoking?
Smoking is the classic example, being an activity whilst entirely legal in theory has been hedged around with so many restrictions it is increasingly illegal in practice. I understand the motives for such restriction (obvs) but am uneasy with it
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
It is fairly rare for consistently successful gamblers to seek treatment for this sad state of affairs.
I realise that my view on this will not be shared by many, but I dispute the existence of a "diagnosed gambling addiction". Many people cannot control their impulses, but to translate that into a medical diagnosis is mistaken: the medical ecology (research, tests, studies, treatments) is not really suitable for things like this. We need to stop treating maladaptive/self-destructive behavior as diseases.
The societal solution to this problem is for the government to outlaw the bookmakers edge.
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
If you outlawed those how many book makers/sports books/casinos etc would there be?
Oh yes, my solution would also almost certainly destroy British horse racing, too.
My solution would be for games of subjective odds (Football, horse racing, politics etc) to just have essentially a gov't run betfair where the Gov't collects 5% rake.
I'm expecting a crackdown on betting under a Starmer administration, sadly.
Oh sod it, I give up. What is the point of Starmer? The gambling industry generates wealth and a source of taxation. You're supposed to milk the golden goose, not kill it.
Same could be said of the tobacco industry. Indeed it has been argued that smokers not only pay more tax, they also die earlier, thereby being less of a pension burden. Perhaps we should allow unfettered tobacco advertising?
Turn the question around: what restrictions should be placed on it? Not what can be, what should be?
Ban gambling advertising. It might not solve all of the problems, but I think it might help.
"If it's legal you should be able to advocate for it"
(I think its a paraphrase of John Stuart Mill. Apologies if it's Ayn Rand )
"Advocate for" sounds American, hence probably Ayn. It's an interesting point. Are there things which we think are undesirable enough for it to be illegal to promote them, but not so undesirable that practicing them should be illegal (perhaps because we fear a Prohibition effect)? Smoking?
I am sure I am not the only person to believe that the proliferation of gambling advertising on evening television is pernicious at the very least
They will tax businesses and wealth creators until the pips squeak and the economy is well and truly fecked. This iteration of the Labour Party only cares about the public sector because they do not understand business and nor do they want to.
Similar to what Norman Lamont said in the early 1990s
Recessions are deeply damaging, and their impact on tax receipts undermines the ability of Governments and Chancellors to balance the books. Jeremy Hunt is deeply toxic. To call him an idiot would be to pay him an undeserved compliment. Let's hope he has an even shorter lifespan in the job than Lamont had.
This is just silly.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
Do you mean gilts are falling sharply ?
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Yes. The interest rate the government has to pay on gilts to get them off the books at par is increasing because future interest rate and inflation rate expectations are rising. The value of current gilts, with lower interest rate coupons on them, have fallen.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
No-one is really talking about debt anymore (as Cameron/Osborne did in 2010-2013 in particular) but it's far worse than then and we're spending almost as much on it as we are on the NHS.
Total UK government debt was, I think, about £2,400bn a year or so ago, when the population was about 68 million, so per capita debt of about £35,300.
Add a years worth of borrowing (£120bn ish) and net immigration (600k or so) and per capita debt becomes £36,700 or so.
Conclusion: The government will really have to boost the rate of immigration if it wants to use immigration to keep per capita debt under control...
Aside: By moving to Ireland from Britain my per capita share of the national debt of my country of residence increased slightly (or a fair bit, depending on the exchange rate used). It was hardly worth the trouble.
Comments
Although I think a lot of it is luck with the sport you pick and the hours you put, in genetics is obviously very key. At Uni I knew Alistair Hignell's brother. Between the 3 siblings they represented their country or country in 5 sports. Talk about greedy
Stats that were almost certainly the source for this article are here btw: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/ethnicdifferencesinlifeexpectancyandmortalityfromselectedcausesinenglandandwales/2011to2014
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12889780/ivan-toney-brentford-striker-diagnosed-with-gambling-addiction-as-fa-release-written-reasons-into-eight-month-ban
The one piece of info that we don't have is, how successful was his betting? My guess is, not very, but would still like to know.
Are The Anti-Trump GOP Forces Starting to Implode?
A mission-control breakdown for DeSantis and smooth launch for Scott bode ill for those hoping to thwart the former president.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/26/are-the-anti-trump-gop-forces-starting-to-implode-00098934
But when you say “ Hunt is just doing as he's told” by who, and for what reason? My view is inflation killing recession kills the racketeering Greedinflation hiding in it at same time, so we should all back Hunt for this sensible reason? I’m excited to hear him he say it, providing he actually does it and not disconnect between say and do.
I think it’s more likely than not that 2019 will be the party’s last ever majority. Evens, smells about right, to me.
20% chance that it ceases to be a meaningful electoral force within a decade, imo.
There is literally nothing that holds the party together.
However only London and the South East moved back into surplus.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1662013961955409920?s=20
The beautiful game.
Reclaims the PB darts crown less than half an hour after losing it.
For either of them to disappear as a potential government party requires the emergence of a genuine alternative in a multi party democracy. The barriers to entry are set extremely high.
FWIW I tend to agree with you and far too many "addictions" these days are not addictions but lack of self control, further examples would be video gaming and social media
Only if we had PR and Labour split into Blairite and Corbynite wings and the Tories split between Cameroon and ERG wings would neither win majorities again
The zero on the roulette wheel, the overround on sports bets, the rtp% on slots should never have been legal.
Outlaw it and the problems eventually go away. Problem is, it’s in everybody’s short and medium term interest to keep it.
And so it remains.
DeSantis launch went better for him than the consensus I think, it certainly talked about and we all know the thing in politics worse than being talked about.
The thread sets out both - some interesting wriggles - Scotland comes well up the income rankings - but also well up the expenditure rankings too.
Once a player gets three marks, the number will be open to them only.
A player scores points by hitting the area he/she opened.
You can void your opponent's open area by getting three marks on the number.
The player with the highest score when all numbers are closed or at the round limit, wins.
So centre right or centre left parties can fall back out of the top 2 but normally only if overtaken by a more hardline right or left party, especially under non FPTP systems
The French system but with the possibility of laying into the market too.
(jumps up and down with glee)
The net fiscal balance is the difference between expenditure and revenue. If more is spent than recieved, then that is a net fiscal deficit. The UK's net fiscal deficit for 2022 was £122.1 billion, because it spent £122.1 billion more than it received.
You can do that sum not just for the whole UK but also for the twelve countries and regions of the UK. Which is what that graph was for.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2022#net-fiscal-balance
[Edit: superfluous text removed]
The commercial consequences of this are obvious. The logic of the suggestion is fine - and it works fine for private use, but the industry would not exist in anything like its current form.
I heard this about Labour in the 1980s, and the Tories in the 2000s, and then about Labour again in the 2010s. The arguments sound convincing each time, but only because seeing changes the future tends to bring is difficult.
UK underlying inflation is coming in higher than expected. Gilt rates are falling sharply in anticipation of further interest rate increases. This is driving the cost of government debt up and making the finances of the Treasury worse.
No Chancellor worth his salt is going to say anything other than bringing down inflation (and thus, indirectly, interest rates and thus, indirectly, gilt rates) is the absolute priority of the government. It would be a dereliction of duty to say anything else.
There's a big block of very floaty voters in Germany who will consider voting any of CDU or SPD or Green, at least outside Bavaria and the new Bundesländer where things are a bit different. Together they are on about 63% in this poll, which is pretty normal - they got nearly 65% between them at the last election.
IND: 46.4% (+46.4)
LDEM: 26.1% (+26.1)
LAB: 15.7% (-57.6)
CON: 6.4% (-16.0)
IND: 3.6% (+3.6)
GRN: 1.8% (-2.5)
Independent GAIN from Labour.
Winning Ind was incumbent Corbyn supporting councillor who left Lab due to SKS.
There is a fight by pressure groups for X to be recognised as a medical condition of some sort. The reason is simple: once X is a medical condition then: It isn't your fault; Moral considerations are transferred to others and away from you; It isn't a crime and you can't be sent to prison for it; The taxpayer must pay to treat you; You mustn't be discriminated against on account of it; You get to start a worthless charity with employees and salaries; You appear on R4 Today.
More deep waters. For all I know bank robbers, rapists and paedophiles have as good a claim to be medicalised on account of their activities as fat people, gambling addicts, attention disorder people, narcissists, psychotics, autism sufferers, alcoholics etc.
There is no real test for these things except politics, popularity, pragmatism and power.
PS Obvs posting on PB deserves its own medical recognition.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaame shot
On the same basis.
Gilt rates would be going up I think...
Oh well, better than the Kindergarden with the current lot……
It shouldn’t be there to try and dissect minute-by-minute what individual politicians were doing, nor to attempt to blame individuals for mistakes they made under pressure.
He might just as well not have been punished, since he only spent 4 years in a variety of minimum security presions.
The sums involved in this are massive. The April figures were horrendous, mainly because the cost of servicing debt increased so sharply. Pretending that we can ignore inflation to try and get a bit more growth in the economy in the short term has very serious effects on government finances, much more severe than a mild recession. Which is, of course, why Germany has taken that option.
I think we may well have reached peak “freedom”
(I think its a paraphrase of John Stuart Mill. Apologies if it's Ayn Rand
The stupid bets I make - that I never learn from - are on Eurovision and sport.
Stake restrictions on successful punters, and account restrictions on being able to use marketing promotions like 'free bets if you do x' should be banned.
A lot of restrictions the bookmakers do on successful punters is so they can be more predatory towards others without exposing their flank to people who might do well. That's not a level playing field.
Bookmakers should be able to set out their stall, and offer odds or promotions, but everyone including those who are successful should be able to take part as a result. If that means that the bookmaker needs to be less predatory towards mugs in order to avoid sharks, then so be it.
I'd still roll the dice on it though. Labour can't rack it up and tax is, obviously, the place they'll go to on top of a record tax burden.
"Netherlands Likely to Send F-16s to Ukraine After Pilot Training"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/netherlands-likely-to-send-f-16s-to-ukraine-after-pilot-training?srnd=premium-europe&leadSource=uverify wall
Supporting the Tory recession to tame inflation is certainly not Reeves message this week - number one growth in G7 or bust is the Labour position.
Suddenly there’s clear blue water on exactly the policies Gove said wins or loses elections.
Consider. What would the surgical or medical cure for gambling addiction be? Do we get to cut out pieces of brains? Aversion therapy? Conferences in a reasonably good conference centre, with orange juice in the breaks, posters and a quiz night and last-night banquet? Will there be carrot cake?
And all this because a rich man made daft decisions and a shrink wrote him a scrip.
There could also be an element of agency to it too. If you believe even more should be splurged at the NHS then you could opt to pay a higher rate and you could receive a medal called The VSFC (Virtue Signal, First Class) which you could wear on your lapel. This would be very popular amongst Liberal Democrats I think.
It probably leaves current scoreboard Starmer 6947, Corbyn’s Owls (aka friends of the green transgender running stats for lefties) 2.
Good start. Work in progress as they say.
Quick question - when it comes to the votes, rights for transgender, with who will you personally be caucusing?
PS ""Advocate for" sounds American"? Scottish, perhaps?
Add a years worth of borrowing (£120bn ish) and net immigration (600k or so) and per capita debt becomes £36,700 or so.
Conclusion: The government will really have to boost the rate of immigration if it wants to use immigration to keep per capita debt under control...
Aside: By moving to Ireland from Britain my per capita share of the national debt of my country of residence increased slightly (or a fair bit, depending on the exchange rate used). It was hardly worth the trouble.