I’d always planned to sell Reform bets after Farage’s first debate - maybe once D-Day gate has taken effect in the polls. A big surge of hype for Reform/Farage should see their odds tumble further for the next few days.
Do we think:
A. The red meat like stamp duty and ULEZ scrapping in the Tory manifesto will boost the Tories back up next week - this is the shortest that Reform odds will get. Best to sell now.
OR
B. Crossover might hold a bit longer - better to keep it going for a bit, see how it goes, and sell Reform bets closer to polling day
OR
C. Hold until the end for the hopes of long odds payouts - MRPs are too hard to guess and the Canada ‘93 wipeout might actually happen.
My feeling is that A is probably the best strategy - but it might be worth taking a steer from the tone of the coverage in tomorrow's papers, particularly the MoS and Sunday Telegraph. If they're leaning strongly towards Refuk, then holding a bit longer begins to make more sense.
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
I would consider voting Tory in the future if they dropped the culture war bollocks and starting considering policies that were aimed at working people 40 and younger without huge inheritances but I think that’s unlikely.
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
I would consider voting Tory in the future if they dropped the culture war bollocks and starting considering policies that were aimed at working people 40 and younger without huge inheritances but I think that’s unlikely.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
I don't know, Horse, old foal. All hypotheses welcome. After the cardboard buses I'd look every way at anything odd the Tories do, and then reexamine it upside down all over again.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
I don't know, Horse, old foal. All hypotheses welcome. After the cardboard buses I'd look every way at anything odd the Tories do, and then reexamine it upside down all over again.
Exactly
Somebody in Downing Street looked at the schedule for D-Day and decided not to attend "the French bit"
That was a conscious decision
They didn't think it was disrespectful to veterans, they didn't think it would upset their Brexity base, they actually thought thumbing their noses at the French was a masterstroke.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Dunnit, mate. Not sure if the odds are right or not. He's brave though.
So are you. Take care.
Is it bravery? Perhaps. Ukraine isn’t THAT dangerous physically - sure it’s a place with elevated risk but as I said before I’d put Odessa on a par with visiting a large Latin American city. You need to keep your wits about you more than normal, definitely. You don’t take foolish risks within context, you book a hotel with a generator and a shelter, and you stay aware - check War Monitor for missiles incoming, they are the real danger
Do all that and the risk is relatively minor but not entirely trivial
What you DO need to overcome is the inflated emotional fear - fear of going to a war zone, fear of being somewhere that’s targeted, fear of hearing and seeing drones and gunfire - which I did in Odessa
If overcoming fear is bravery then I’ll take the compliment. But I don’t think it’s that brave. In all honesty saying something contentious about trans issues on social media is probably braver! Certainly riskier
There are moments in each election that crystallise the entire campaign. In 2015, it was Ed Miliband standing in front of what appeared to be an enormous gravestone with his own pledges engraved on it. In 2017, Theresa May insisting that “nothing has changed” after she announced and then tried to change a hugely unpopular policy on social care. Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” was the 2010 moment, closely followed by the post-election discovery of a note hastily written by Liam Byrne jokingly warning his successor – who he assumed would be an old political friend – that there was “no money!”
Just two weeks into this election campaign, 2024 gained its moment. Rishi Sunak apologised for leaving the international D-Day commemorations in France early. Initially, the Prime Minister’s absence in line-ups with Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron raised a few eyebrows. It was when it emerged that he had left early in order to do a pre-recorded interview with ITV – which won’t even air until next week – that all hell broke loose.
Tory MPs were in meltdown. CCHQ didn’t know what to say to anyone who asked for help with lines to take. “We have targeted our entire campaign at pensioners,” complained one backbencher who had, until this week, thought he might hold on to his seat. “We have scared them that Labour will steal their pensions and announced that bloody stupid national service policy. Then we piss off the group that has the strongest emotional connection to D-Day.”
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
I could see a conversation going something like this: "Of course you need to be at the British ceremony. There's the option of joining the French ceremony. No-one's going to bother about the French, so you can skip that one"
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Okay. It’s a very specific bet, that the Conservative & Unionist Party have precisely zero seats in the new Parliament.
TBH I first thought 1000/1 before writing 100/1, and perhaps I should have met you half way and said 500/1. But we are where we are.
There’s a load of proxies that come close, Labour 450 or 500 seats, Lib Dems 50 or 100 seats, SNP 50 seats, all of which are worth a couple of quid, but none come close to the actual zero. Perhaps there will be a market nearer the time that will be more helpful.
Remember that it only needs one blue seat for me to win, so it could be a random result in Scotland, or the PM with a dozen challengers and no clear opponent under FPTP.
The Canadian 1993 result of two seats is I guess the precident, but can’t imagine it to be worse than that.
But mostly, it’s just fun to have a bet. I live abroad and got shut down by all of the UK bookies a few years ago.
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
I am a former expert in this area. FSM is a piggy back benefit - if you qualify for a particular benefit, you get FSMs.
There are so many people on some form of welfare, loads of kids qualify.
This is yet another hidden perverse incentive that has to be modelled when you look at the relationship between welfare and employment. Lots of Scottish benefits piggy back off UK Gov benefits, so there are even more disincentives to work than elsewhere in the UK for example.
These interactions can be flat - it's always worth not working - or threshold based, where a certain number of hours would tip you over an edge which meant you start to lose money. I vaguely recall 16 hours per week being one for some reason.
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
I don't know, Horse, old foal. All hypotheses welcome. After the cardboard buses I'd look every way at anything odd the Tories do, and then reexamine it upside down all over again.
Exactly
Somebody in Downing Street looked at the schedule for D-Day and decided not to attend "the French bit"
That was a conscious decision
They didn't think it was disrespectful to veterans, they didn't think it would upset their Brexity base, they actually thought thumbing their noses at the French was a masterstroke.
Fuck 'em, and the helicopter they flew in on
One can only imagine the trauma of poor Rishi having to listen to Ode To Joy !
I always get emotional listening to OTJ , such a beautiful piece of music . And fxck Farage and the Brexit Party scum who turned their back on it at the European Parliament.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
People know it’s a ratchet. They assume that there will more zones. Based on past experience they are right.
Given the stupid stuff that politicians do and their disconnection from the realities of life, I could easily see a fuck up.
Opinium this week sounds like it will show little change from Calum Weir's tweet, he points out the bulk of fieldwork was pre DDay apology (5 to 7 Jun). He also seems to realise his ramping last week pissed a few people off
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
I am a former expert in this area. FSM is a piggy back benefit - if you qualify for a particular benefit, you get FSMs.
There are so many people on some form of welfare, loads of kids qualify.
This is yet another hidden perverse incentive that has to be modelled when you look at the relationship between welfare and employment. Lots of Scottish benefits piggy back off UK Gov benefits, so there are even more disincentives to work than elsewhere in the UK for example.
These interactions can be flat - it's always worth not working - or threshold based, where a certain number of hours would tip you over an edge which meant you start to lose money. I vaguely recall 16 hours per week being one for some reason.
There is loads more stuff about how earnings have not kept up with welfare qualification criteria and so more people fall into qualification etc etc
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
People know it’s a ratchet. They assume that there will more zones. Based on past experience they are right.
Given the stupid stuff that politicians do and their disconnection from the realities of life, I could easily see a fuck up.
Not just that there will be more zones, but that the existing zones would be amended to cover more vehicles.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Inappropriate. Fully Elected peers or also force Mps to stand down at the next election once 80
Some people can be incredibly wise and insightful to their dying day in their 90s. Not sure I agree with this, it also feels like feeble tinkering
Don't you call Biden bad because of his age?
Yes, but that’s because Biden is the most powerful man on the planet and the leader of the free world - someone in that position should have all their marbles. He doesn’t. There SHOULD be age limits on US presidents. This would have the added advantage of excluding the odious Trump
Being a member of a revising second chamber in a parliamentary democracy is vastly different from being POTUS. The damage you can do is minimal and is outweighed by the real wisdom you might bring on issues you know a lot about - even if you’re 85
Eg this policy would not allow David Attenborough to vote and speak in the Lords on issues relating to the environment and wildlife. Is that what we want?
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
People know it’s a ratchet. They assume that there will more zones. Based on past experience they are right.
Given the stupid stuff that politicians do and their disconnection from the realities of life, I could easily see a fuck up.
Not just that there will be more zones, but that the existing zones would be amended to cover more vehicles.
It's a balance between not going in too hard that you spark a massive backlash while also hassling industry/consumers towards progress. Consider the phase out of leaded petrol, introduction of seat belts and other safety features. No one looks back on those and thinks the government went too far.
My view is that Khan got the balance just about right in London but the same restrictions in small towns/provincial England would be a step too far at this stage.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Okay. It’s a very specific bet, that the Conservative & Unionist Party have precisely zero seats in the new Parliament.
TBH I first thought 1000/1 before writing 100/1, and perhaps I should have met you half way and said 500/1. But we are where we are.
There’s a load of proxies that come close, Labour 450 or 500 seats, Lib Dems 50 or 100 seats, SNP 50 seats, all of which are worth a couple of quid, but none come close to the actual zero. Perhaps there will be a market nearer the time that will be more helpful.
Remember that it only needs one blue seat for me to win, so it could be a random result in Scotland, or the PM with a dozen challengers and no clear opponent under FPTP.
The Canadian 1993 result of two seats is I guess the precident, but can’t imagine it to be worse than that.
But mostly, it’s just fun to have a bet. I live abroad and got shut down by all of the UK bookies a few years ago.
Oh, and I want to say I won a bet with you.
Hah. Thanks. I’m sure you are going to win of course but if the incredible happens I WILL collect my winnings - but I will honourably donate them to the charity of “sending leon to yet another really nice sunny place” which I shall establish for that noble purpose
Musing further. If the LD's ended up as the Opposition, then you'd have a Shadow Cabinet with a majority who haven't even any experience of even being an MP. Which would seriously hamper much holding of the government to account.
I suspect the electorate collectively understand this and its what turns wipeout polling like 97 and 01 into the situations that unfolded. If the situation looks like occurring nearer the time it will get column inches and tv time. At that point, highly disillusioned Tories start to reluctantly but necessarily return
I'd be astonished if deep musings about the nature and role of the Parliamentary Opposition post-election came into the thinking of more than a small fraction of voters, even amongst the minority who pick on the basis of careful consideration (as opposed to gut instinct allied to concerns about one or two key issues) in the first place.
Besides, if this governing party is about to be slung out for being very, very bad, then why should it be any better at opposition?
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
I'm claiming an accurate forecast some time ago, albeit a no brainer - Mr Starmer gets to do something inexpensive and popular with nearly everyone, and the nerds, and to nobble the Tories at the same time.
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
People know it’s a ratchet. They assume that there will more zones. Based on past experience they are right.
Given the stupid stuff that politicians do and their disconnection from the realities of life, I could easily see a fuck up.
Not just that there will be more zones, but that the existing zones would be amended to cover more vehicles.
It's a balance between not going in too hard that you spark a massive backlash while also hassling industry/consumers towards progress. Consider the phase out of leaded petrol, introduction of seat belts and other safety features. No one looks back on those and thinks the government went too far.
I agree, but none of the above were a tax on being poor at the time they were introduced, because they only applied to new vehicles. It was never said that if you have the old car with no seatsbelts, then you need to pay an hour’s wages just to get to work.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Inappropriate. Fully Elected peers or also force Mps to stand down at the next election once 80
Some people can be incredibly wise and insightful to their dying day in their 90s. Not sure I agree with this, it also feels like feeble tinkering
Don't you call Biden bad because of his age?
Yes, but that’s because Biden is the most powerful man on the planet and the leader of the free world - someone in that position should have all their marbles. He doesn’t. There SHOULD be age limits on US presidents. This would have the added advantage of excluding the odious Trump
Being a member of a revising second chamber in a parliamentary democracy is vastly different from being POTUS. The damage you can do is minimal and is outweighed by the real wisdom you might bring on issues you know a lot about - even if you’re 85
Eg this policy would not allow David Attenborough to vote and speak in the Lords on issues relating to the environment and wildlife. Is that what we want?
I hope as i get much older I am put in the Lords and have a saucy young nurse who can do all the voting and tiresome stuff between looking after me
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
I'm claiming an accurate forecast some time ago, albeit a no brainer - Mr Starmer gets to do something inexpensive and popular with nearly everyone, and the nerds, and to nobble the Tories at the same time.
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
ULEZ - highly effective. Will scare the crap out of poorer people in rural areas who depend on their cars and keep old bangers going for decades. People where I grew up are deeply worried about this kind of thing, and equate it with more radical policies like taxing per mile (which is IMO a stupid idea, the inverse of what we should be doing)
20mph - mixed. A large chunk of voters get really wound up by these. But always in a local minority, and in local politics this could cause real issues. Incumbency is really the only thing going for some Tory candidates, and if the perception is overturning a 20mph limit outside a primary school to please some Audi drivers... Tory to Reform switchers only I think.
LTNs - will appeal to the tin hatters (Reform again). That's about it - too complicated for most voters. Could be weaponised by Labour by working out the total cost of ripping out every LTN in the country - billions, considering all modern housing estates are LTNs.
The whole point of the ULEZ is that it's a Zone - it won't be a zone if it's the whole country. And there is no way you could implement it in the countryside for the obvious reason that everyone needs a car...
People know it’s a ratchet. They assume that there will more zones. Based on past experience they are right.
Given the stupid stuff that politicians do and their disconnection from the realities of life, I could easily see a fuck up.
Not just that there will be more zones, but that the existing zones would be amended to cover more vehicles.
It's a balance between not going in too hard that you spark a massive backlash while also hassling industry/consumers towards progress. Consider the phase out of leaded petrol, introduction of seat belts and other safety features. No one looks back on those and thinks the government went too far.
I agree, but none of the above were a tax on being poor at the time they were introduced, because they only applied to new vehicles. It was never said that if you have the old car with no seatsbelts, then you need to pay an hour’s wages just to get to work.
True, though generous grants have been made available.
It's also why a lot of moaning about 2030 deadline for ICE cars was a bit pathetic. It was NEW cars - not all cars! Perhaps it could have been accompanied by some sort of incentive for keeping old bangers going until 2035. VAT free repairs and replacements.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
So it’s actually quite hard to hedge this? Is that right? Unless you can find a bookie with odds close to or longer than 1000/1 on zero Tory seats?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
@HYUFD will come to the rescue as after 5 recounts Con HOLD Epping Forest
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
I'm claiming an accurate forecast some time ago, albeit a no brainer - Mr Starmer gets to do something inexpensive and popular with nearly everyone, and the nerds, and to nobble the Tories at the same time.
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I’ll definitely accept the whip round, if I end up £10k out of pocket!
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
I'm claiming an accurate forecast some time ago, albeit a no brainer - Mr Starmer gets to do something inexpensive and popular with nearly everyone, and the nerds, and to nobble the Tories at the same time.
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
So it’s actually quite hard to hedge this? Is that right? Unless you can find a bookie with odds close to or longer than 1000/1 on zero Tory seats?
It's not going to be possible to hedge this without locking in a guaranteed loss of at least £50 imo.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
I'm claiming an accurate forecast some time ago, albeit a no brainer - Mr Starmer gets to do something inexpensive and popular with nearly everyone, and the nerds, and to nobble the Tories at the same time.
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
I might be wrong but I think the largest losing PB bet before this was when the ex-PB-er @SeanT lost £1000 to @williamglenn on Brexit being enacted by the end of the decade - ie December 31, 2019
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
So it’s actually quite hard to hedge this? Is that right? Unless you can find a bookie with odds close to or longer than 1000/1 on zero Tory seats?
as a semi hedge william hill are offering at 100/1 no scottish seats for tories
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
Inappropriate. Fully Elected peers or also force Mps to stand down at the next election once 80
Some people can be incredibly wise and insightful to their dying day in their 90s. Not sure I agree with this, it also feels like feeble tinkering
Don't you call Biden bad because of his age?
Yes, but that’s because Biden is the most powerful man on the planet and the leader of the free world - someone in that position should have all their marbles. He doesn’t. There SHOULD be age limits on US presidents. This would have the added advantage of excluding the odious Trump
Being a member of a revising second chamber in a parliamentary democracy is vastly different from being POTUS. The damage you can do is minimal and is outweighed by the real wisdom you might bring on issues you know a lot about - even if you’re 85
Eg this policy would not allow David Attenborough to vote and speak in the Lords on issues relating to the environment and wildlife. Is that what we want?
I hope as i get much older I am put in the Lords and have a saucy young nurse who can do all the voting and tiresome stuff between looking after me
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
So it’s actually quite hard to hedge this? Is that right? Unless you can find a bookie with odds close to or longer than 1000/1 on zero Tory seats?
as a semi hedge william hill are offering at 100/1 no scottish seats for tories
Ooh, let me ask a friend to put a couple of quid on that.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
I might be wrong but I think the largest losing PB bet before this was when the ex-PB-er @SeanT lost £1000 to @williamglenn on Brexit being enacted by the end of the decade - ie December 31, 2019
I believe you are right there Leon. If only dear Sean were around to give us sage experiential advice on the dangers of gambling.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
I might be wrong but I think the largest losing PB bet before this was when the ex-PB-er @SeanT lost £1000 to @williamglenn on Brexit being enacted by the end of the decade - ie December 31, 2019
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
What are the odds of the Tories getting ZERO seats?
In 2019 their safest seat was South Holland and the Deepings, which not only has a superb name but also seems to be the kind of place that might chuck some votes at Reform, and in an extreme case let Labour through
Yes yes yes extremely unlikely given the 2019 result
But how unlikely? What are the odds on the Tories returning literally NO MPs?
I’ll give you a tenner at 100/1.
(You can give the tenner to a Ukranian charity while you’re there).
Make it 1000/1 and you’re on
Go on then.
Are you serious? You will have to give me £10,000 if I win. That’s a lot of money but I will hold you to it - for the sake of the site’s reputation. Are you sure?
Yes I’m good for the ten bags.
Hah! I admire your bravery. I’m not sure I’d offer this bet. Coz it could happen and all you stand to gain is a tenner
But a bet is a bet. If - when! - I lose I am happy to pay it to you or a charity of your choosing
This is amusing. It adds a tiny dash of mad Tabasco to the feast of election fun
We'll do a Gofundme for SP if he ends up on the wrong side of this. I'd kick in a couple of grand at least because ZERO tory seats... well...
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
I might be wrong but I think the largest losing PB bet before this was when the ex-PB-er @SeanT lost £1000 to @williamglenn on Brexit being enacted by the end of the decade - ie December 31, 2019
I believe you are right there Leon. If only dear Sean were around to give us sage experiential advice on the dangers of gambling.
He has grounds for feeling a tiny bit cheated. He won the bet on principle - @williamglenn made the wager coz he thought Brexit would never happen, so he was wrong - but the date limit set meant @SeanT lost the actual bet, even tho Brexit happened
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
So it’s actually quite hard to hedge this? Is that right? Unless you can find a bookie with odds close to or longer than 1000/1 on zero Tory seats?
as a semi hedge william hill are offering at 100/1 no scottish seats for tories
Ooh, let me ask a friend to put a couple of quid on that.
Alas now only 5/1 - was 100/1 when i stuck £2 on it a few days ago!
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
Its because poverty is relative.
Many of those eligible for free school meals will also be obese.
Or recently arrived immigrants. Or both.
There is never any shortage of people claiming for free handouts.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
'One of'?!
We had The Motorhome only a year ago.
Sorry but Conservatives on zero seats would trounce that. Not happening though obvs.
A more challenging bet would be who will be the Official Opposition after the election. 85% Con, 10% LD, 5% Reform right now?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
I might be wrong but I think the largest losing PB bet before this was when the ex-PB-er @SeanT lost £1000 to @williamglenn on Brexit being enacted by the end of the decade - ie December 31, 2019
in William’s Europhile days, I think?
That’s a long time ago…
IIRC he was never a mad europhile. He was more pragmatic - he made the bet because he believed Brexit was so explosive and difficult and implausible it would somehow be stopped before it was enacted. Looking back, at all the second vote lunacy, he had a point
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
I'm claiming an accurate forecast some time ago, albeit a no brainer - Mr Starmer gets to do something inexpensive and popular with nearly everyone, and the nerds, and to nobble the Tories at the same time.
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
I'm not sure telling the Tories best voting cohort they are useless and need to be put out to pasture is a good move
Still, Starmer's "enforced retirement for politicians at 80" plan will be a nice talking point when he next meets the US President (whichever one it turns out to be).
In fairness, my parents are in that age bracket and think the age of the US candidates is ridiculous. I doubt they are alone in that. Elderly people are perhaps better placed than anyone to know that, whatever their strengths, they aren't at the peak of their powers any more, some days are a real struggle, and they shouldn't really be running the country.
That's a silly bet. It won't happen and if it did - which it won't - Leon won't claim the 10 grand off Sandpit.
I absolutely would. What’s more I would expect to be paid - what is the point of this site if people welch on bets. It ruins everything
If an amoral, whoremongering thug like @SeanT can nobly cough up £1000 when he loses a bet so can any PBer. And @Sandpit strikes me as a man of his word
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
Its because poverty is relative.
Many of those eligible for free school meals will also be obese.
Or recently arrived immigrants. Or both.
There is never any shortage of people claiming for free handouts.
There are moments in each election that crystallise the entire campaign. In 2015, it was Ed Miliband standing in front of what appeared to be an enormous gravestone with his own pledges engraved on it. In 2017, Theresa May insisting that “nothing has changed” after she announced and then tried to change a hugely unpopular policy on social care. Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” was the 2010 moment, closely followed by the post-election discovery of a note hastily written by Liam Byrne jokingly warning his successor – who he assumed would be an old political friend – that there was “no money!”
Just two weeks into this election campaign, 2024 gained its moment. Rishi Sunak apologised for leaving the international D-Day commemorations in France early. Initially, the Prime Minister’s absence in line-ups with Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron raised a few eyebrows. It was when it emerged that he had left early in order to do a pre-recorded interview with ITV – which won’t even air until next week – that all hell broke loose.
Tory MPs were in meltdown. CCHQ didn’t know what to say to anyone who asked for help with lines to take. “We have targeted our entire campaign at pensioners,” complained one backbencher who had, until this week, thought he might hold on to his seat. “We have scared them that Labour will steal their pensions and announced that bloody stupid national service policy. Then we piss off the group that has the strongest emotional connection to D-Day.”
The 2010 one is bollocks. The Tories and their outriders tried to make a lot of the “bigoted woman” thing but it didn’t stick. The striking bit of that election was the first ever TV debates and the “Cleggasm” which, together with a decent fight back from Mandelson, lost Cameron his majority and nearly kept Labour in power (though I suspect Clegg always secretly would have preferred a deal with the Tories, not that any of us though Hung Parliaments very likely back then).
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
Its because poverty is relative.
Many of those eligible for free school meals will also be obese.
Or recently arrived immigrants. Or both.
There is never any shortage of people claiming for free handouts.
1) FSMs are not calculated by poverty, absolute or relative.
2) Immigrants tend to have lower rates of claiming for benefits when eligible, and are more likely to be in work than the general population. They might be less aware that they are entitled to FSMs. I can't say for sure what rates of FSMs look like for immigrants, but after making the necessary adjustments for a fair comparison I would guess it's pretty much the same as the rest of us.
3) About £8 billion of Universal Credit is not claimed for by over a million households. That could mean hundreds of thousands of kids who should be getting FSMs are not.
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
I am a former expert in this area. FSM is a piggy back benefit - if you qualify for a particular benefit, you get FSMs.
There are so many people on some form of welfare, loads of kids qualify.
This is yet another hidden perverse incentive that has to be modelled when you look at the relationship between welfare and employment. Lots of Scottish benefits piggy back off UK Gov benefits, so there are even more disincentives to work than elsewhere in the UK for example.
These interactions can be flat - it's always worth not working - or threshold based, where a certain number of hours would tip you over an edge which meant you start to lose money. I vaguely recall 16 hours per week being one for some reason.
Aren't 100% of reception, year 1 and year 2 also eligible for free school meals now? That would mean the percentage of over sevens eligible would be a fair bit less than 25%.
That's a silly bet. It won't happen and if it did - which it won't - Leon won't claim the 10 grand off Sandpit.
I absolutely would.
Which is absolutely fair. But really you should consider donating any such winnings to a suitable charity such as the Distressed Toryfolk's Aid Association
Come the election @Sandpit is going to have a tiny tiny tiny tickle of anxiety until that first Tory seat is declared. Imagine if the first Tory seats all fall unexpectedly…. Even the safest ones….
lol. It’s a very sporting offer by @Sandpit and I applaud it
That's a silly bet. It won't happen and if it did - which it won't - Leon won't claim the 10 grand off Sandpit.
I absolutely would. What’s more I would expect to be paid - what is the point of this site if people welch on bets. It ruins everything
If an amoral, whoremongering thug like @SeanT can nobly cough up £1000 when he loses a bet so can any PBer. And @Sandpit strikes me as a man of his word
He’s a man of his word. Robert knows his name and has an email address for him.
That's a silly bet. It won't happen and if it did - which it won't - Leon won't claim the 10 grand off Sandpit.
I'm pretty sure he would. #classicleon
I’m pretty sure you would as well. A bet is a bet. This is a betting site
I definitely would.
I once won 200 quid in a contest to see who could eat a whole packet of digestive biscuits the quickest with no fluids. I collected my winnings and was then suckered into a second round. I made the tactical error of making myself spew up the first packet and felt so rotten I couldn't finish the second packet. So I had to hand back the original 200 quid and another 200 quid on top of that. #anofficerandagentleman
There are moments in each election that crystallise the entire campaign. In 2015, it was Ed Miliband standing in front of what appeared to be an enormous gravestone with his own pledges engraved on it. In 2017, Theresa May insisting that “nothing has changed” after she announced and then tried to change a hugely unpopular policy on social care. Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” was the 2010 moment, closely followed by the post-election discovery of a note hastily written by Liam Byrne jokingly warning his successor – who he assumed would be an old political friend – that there was “no money!”
Just two weeks into this election campaign, 2024 gained its moment. Rishi Sunak apologised for leaving the international D-Day commemorations in France early. Initially, the Prime Minister’s absence in line-ups with Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron raised a few eyebrows. It was when it emerged that he had left early in order to do a pre-recorded interview with ITV – which won’t even air until next week – that all hell broke loose.
Tory MPs were in meltdown. CCHQ didn’t know what to say to anyone who asked for help with lines to take. “We have targeted our entire campaign at pensioners,” complained one backbencher who had, until this week, thought he might hold on to his seat. “We have scared them that Labour will steal their pensions and announced that bloody stupid national service policy. Then we piss off the group that has the strongest emotional connection to D-Day.”
The 2010 one is bollocks. The Tories and their outriders tried to make a lot of the “bigoted woman” thing but it didn’t stick. The striking bit of that election was the first ever TV debates and the “Cleggasm” which, together with a decent fight back from Mandelson, lost Cameron his majority and nearly kept Labour in power (though I suspect Clegg always secretly would have preferred a deal with the Tories, not that any of us though Hung Parliaments very likely back then).
I don't agree. Bigoted womangate was the moment of that campaign.
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
Leon's unbearability is pretty much baked in, isn't it?
That's a silly bet. It won't happen and if it did - which it won't - Leon won't claim the 10 grand off Sandpit.
I absolutely would.
Which is absolutely fair. But really you should consider donating any such winnings to a suitable charity such as the Distressed Toryfolk's Aid Association
I might donate half to Marine Le Pen’s election fund
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
And if he can’t find that then he can’t hedge it? Serious question. This is a concept I’ve never really wrapped my head around - out of uninterest or apathy or whatever. How else could you hedge it if you can’t get the longer odds you suggest?
Can the pb betting brainiacs, eg @Peter_the_Punter explain the best way for @Sandpit to hedge his bet against me?
I’ve never really understood this aspect of betting. I’m on a long bus journey to Kyiv so maybe now is the time to learn
Well he just has to find someone to lay same outcome at longer odds
Or bet a tenner on the spreads at less than the current 111 seats. If it turns out to be zero seats, he picks up £1,110 and walks away with a net £110 and you get £1,000. Of course it turns out to be 150 seats he loses £390.
Order of magnitude error there I think! He will lose TEN GRAND to @Leon if the Tories draw a blank
You're right. He needs to bet £100 a seat and hope the Tories don't get more than 111 seats. Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it. It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
I don’t want to see a fellow PBers lose such a large sum, especially a gent like @Sandpit, so am rooting for the Tories to do better than zero for this reason alone!
Leon will be unbearable. Will ruin one of the most memorable events in UK political history.
'One of'?!
We had The Motorhome only a year ago.
Sorry but Conservatives on zero seats would trounce that. Not happening though obvs.
A more challenging bet would be who will be the Official Opposition after the election. 85% Con, 10% LD, 5% Reform right now?
BetFair at the moment has 76% Con, 17% LD, 7% Reform
That's a silly bet. It won't happen and if it did - which it won't - Leon won't claim the 10 grand off Sandpit.
I'm pretty sure he would. #classicleon
I’m pretty sure you would as well. A bet is a bet. This is a betting site
I definitely would.
I once won 200 quid in a contest to see who could eat a whole packet of digestive biscuits the quickest with no fluids. I collected my winnings and was then suckered into a second round. I made the tactical error of making myself spew up the first packet and felt so rotten I couldn't finish the second packet. So I had to hand back the original 200 quid and another 200 quid on top of that. #anofficerandagentleman
Can a PB expert answer a puzzle. The government itself says that 25% of all schoolchildren qualify for free school meals - over 2 million.
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
Its because poverty is relative.
Many of those eligible for free school meals will also be obese.
Or recently arrived immigrants. Or both.
There is never any shortage of people claiming for free handouts.
Comments
The penny now dropping. This was not a “mistake” but a deliberate Brexiteer snub of Emmanuel Macron - and the accompanying lobby circus was complicit. It took social media to draw attention to the gross insult
https://x.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1799217547901829565
Labour manifesto will commit to introducing an age limit on serving peers.
House of Lords will be scaled back by forcing peers to retire at age 80, or at the end of the parliament in which they reach that age.
It's part of a two-phased approach to Lords reform. There will be some immediate measures, such as banning new hereditary peers. Others will be longer term and not guaranteed within 5 years.
https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1799394769824616736
How is this possible in a prosperous country with a minimum wage and high levels of employment? I'm asking a maths/economics question, not a party political one. I live in an area in the bottom third economically, and this just does not seem credible.
Somebody in Downing Street looked at the schedule for D-Day and decided not to attend "the French bit"
That was a conscious decision
They didn't think it was disrespectful to veterans, they didn't think it would upset their Brexity base, they actually thought thumbing their noses at the French was a masterstroke.
Fuck 'em, and the helicopter they flew in on
Do all that and the risk is relatively minor but not entirely trivial
What you DO need to overcome is the inflated emotional fear - fear of going to a war zone, fear of being somewhere that’s targeted, fear of hearing and seeing drones and gunfire - which I did in Odessa
If overcoming fear is bravery then I’ll take the compliment. But I don’t think it’s that brave. In all honesty saying something contentious about trans issues on social media is probably braver! Certainly riskier
Just two weeks into this election campaign, 2024 gained its moment. Rishi Sunak apologised for leaving the international D-Day commemorations in France early. Initially, the Prime Minister’s absence in line-ups with Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron raised a few eyebrows. It was when it emerged that he had left early in order to do a pre-recorded interview with ITV – which won’t even air until next week – that all hell broke loose.
Tory MPs were in meltdown. CCHQ didn’t know what to say to anyone who asked for help with lines to take. “We have targeted our entire campaign at pensioners,” complained one backbencher who had, until this week, thought he might hold on to his seat. “We have scared them that Labour will steal their pensions and announced that bloody stupid national service policy. Then we piss off the group that has the strongest emotional connection to D-Day.”
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/rishi-sunak-d-day-snub-define-election-3098104
https://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council/elections-and-voting/Statement of Persons Nominated & Notice of Poll - 4 July 2024.pdf
TBH I first thought 1000/1 before writing 100/1, and perhaps I should have met you half way and said 500/1. But we are where we are.
There’s a load of proxies that come close, Labour 450 or 500 seats, Lib Dems 50 or 100 seats, SNP 50 seats, all of which are worth a couple of quid, but none come close to the actual zero. Perhaps there will be a market nearer the time that will be more helpful.
Remember that it only needs one blue seat for me to win, so it could be a random result in Scotland, or the PM with a dozen challengers and no clear opponent under FPTP.
The Canadian 1993 result of two seats is I guess the precident, but can’t imagine it to be worse than that.
But mostly, it’s just fun to have a bet. I live abroad and got shut down by all of the UK bookies a few years ago.
Oh, and I want to say I won a bet with you.
Or TwiX up the betting firms and ask them for a price against zero. Several firms advertise this service.
There are so many people on some form of welfare, loads of kids qualify.
I always refer people to the excellent HoC Library briefings for stuff like this: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/free-school-meals-in-england/
Some other info:
This is yet another hidden perverse incentive that has to be modelled when you look at the relationship between welfare and employment. Lots of Scottish benefits piggy back off UK Gov benefits, so there are even more disincentives to work than elsewhere in the UK for example.
These interactions can be flat - it's always worth not working - or threshold based, where a certain number of hours would tip you over an edge which meant you start to lose money. I vaguely recall 16 hours per week being one for some reason.
I always get emotional listening to OTJ , such a beautiful piece of music . And fxck Farage and the Brexit Party scum who turned their back on it at the European Parliament.
Given the stupid stuff that politicians do and their disconnection from the realities of life, I could easily see a fuck up.
But I've forgotten it all
There were press events scheduled for today, now cancelled.
Being a member of a revising second chamber in a parliamentary democracy is vastly different from being POTUS. The damage you can do is minimal and is outweighed by the real wisdom you might bring on issues you know a lot about - even if you’re 85
Eg this policy would not allow David Attenborough to vote and speak in the Lords on issues relating to the environment and wildlife. Is that what we want?
My view is that Khan got the balance just about right in London but the same restrictions in small towns/provincial England would be a step too far at this stage.
Besides, if this governing party is about to be slung out for being very, very bad, then why should it be any better at opposition?
Peers would be forced to stand down at 80 and hereditary roles would be scrapped under Keir Starmer
Here's the full piece:
https://archive.ph/NoJT8#selection-2687.0-2687.99
Phew. Interesting bet. I don't think I'd lay it.
It'd be worth the laughs if the Tories actually get zero seats! Though it will cost Sandpit £10,000. Perhaps we could do a whip round?
It's also why a lot of moaning about 2030 deadline for ICE cars was a bit pathetic. It was NEW cars - not all cars! Perhaps it could have been accompanied by some sort of incentive for keeping old bangers going until 2035. VAT free repairs and replacements.
do better than zero for this reason alone!
That’s a long time ago…
Originally the bet was £10,000!
https://x.com/Independent/status/1799421538837442933
Sunak has resigned
Many of those eligible for free school meals will also be obese.
Or recently arrived immigrants. Or both.
There is never any shortage of people claiming for free handouts.
A more challenging bet would be who will be the Official Opposition after the election. 85% Con, 10% LD, 5% Reform right now?
In fairness, my parents are in that age bracket and think the age of the US candidates is ridiculous. I doubt they are alone in that. Elderly people are perhaps better placed than anyone to know that, whatever their strengths, they aren't at the peak of their powers any more, some days are a real struggle, and they shouldn't really be running the country.
If an amoral, whoremongering thug like @SeanT can nobly cough up £1000 when he loses a bet so can any PBer. And @Sandpit strikes me as a man of his word
2) Immigrants tend to have lower rates of claiming for benefits when eligible, and are more likely to be in work than the general population. They might be less aware that they are entitled to FSMs. I can't say for sure what rates of FSMs look like for immigrants, but after making the necessary adjustments for a fair comparison I would guess it's pretty much the same as the rest of us.
3) About £8 billion of Universal Credit is not claimed for by over a million households. That could mean hundreds of thousands of kids who should be getting FSMs are not.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says he wants to replace business rates "with a system that works better".
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1799426386517475563
lol. It’s a very sporting offer by @Sandpit and I applaud it
I once won 200 quid in a contest to see who could eat a whole packet of digestive biscuits the quickest with no fluids. I collected my winnings and was then suckered into a second round. I made the tactical error of making myself spew up the first packet and felt so rotten I couldn't finish the second packet. So I had to hand back the original 200 quid and another 200 quid on top of that. #anofficerandagentleman