Reform should not be losing places like Grays. This isn't great for Farage.
Wait and see what happens if he loses the by-election to the bin.
WRT the byelection, did many people predict this strange development:
There are 34 candidates, with only two having any recognition, status or form, Farage and Binface. The mainstream media have to obey election rules about fair coverage. Much of the media have to list all 34 candidates if they mention any individual candidate. It isn't possible to cover the election without mentioning Farage. So they deal with it by giving no coverage at all, the only lawful step that makes sense. If you google 'Clacton by-election' (news) almost nothing comes up. The BBC have nothing much apart from a statutory list. Fascinating.
Labour gains from Reform. Quite surprising - it’s true Reform heartland - but also given the area isn’t that far from Clacton, quite interesting.
Which raises the interesting possibility, which we have touched in the past couple of days, that Labour not the Conservatives might benefit from a Reform collapse as widely assumed, not least by the Conservatives themselves. ie it goes back to a 2024 situation. A complete collapse probably does benefit the Conservatives; a partial collapse may benefit Labour.
Agree. Labour have positioned themselves as a real alternative to Reform, with populist but not extreme approaches to migration and a new leader who understands communication with non anoraks and non Hampstead. The Tories have positioned themselves as Reformlite and said with great clarity that they want One Nationers to vote Labour or LD. Which they will unless and until the Tories put in a leader who understands what conservatism is, economic, fiscal and cultural.
Andy Burnham is just like Boris . Both very affable and can speak to normal humans perfectly at ease . Both his or gave the impression they wing it at times . It’s why both will have a strong personal vote as actual policy failings are more easily forgiven if the population can at least have a laugh or sympathise .
Not for any arguments it sets out (though FWIW I agree about the potential benefits of decentralisation), but for his evident confidence that he can move the dial.
That's a pretty tough ask in the three years he has available.
Rayner was doing the old familiar politics on home building numbers on R4 Today this morning. The interviewer, Rayner and the entire audience knew that the answer to the question about whether the government could attain its 1.5 million homes promise by 2029 was "No". But she would not say so, and managed also to blame the Tories and the nature of reality for the failure she would not accept was going to happen.
I think Burnham's government has little to lose by speaking human and saying the truth about these things instead of being asked about them for the next three years while they evade the obvious.
She had 18 months in charge of housing before, with no initiatives, no inducements, no legislation, no planning reform - and then had to resign after she fcuked up her own housing arrangements.
How’s about identifying a few square miles of government-owned land that can be released for development, working with industry and mortgage lenders to set up 50-year warranties on prefabricated houses, relaxing planning consent for small individual plots under 1 acre and 3,000sqft BUA, and streamlining the process for major infrastructure projects based on Hybrid Bills through Parliament.
All of the above ideas COST NO MONEY.
The way to make it really work would be to, indeed, spend money.
Borrow from the Victorians. Plan a small town. Put in the roads. Put in the sewers, the water, the leecy, the gas. Put in the schools and the GP surgery (make it one of the those large, combined practices). Put in pubs and shops. Put in the train station, if you can justify one.
Fire up as many of those facilities as possible - the existing locals will probably want them.
Sell the plots of land to different developers. One side of a street to each.
Yes that’s also a good idea, but I was trying to find ideas initially that didn’t cost the government money.
As @Battlebus Points out below, Mr Timms is now responsible for both DWP and Housing. Given how much money the DWP spends on housing benefit, that might be a massive incentive for the department to do some out-of-the-box thinking.
As an example, I’d offer social tenants in London monthly cash payments for a few years to move elsewhere splitting the difference on the rents.
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
Yes I understand . But passing why this would mean it pays to be a gambler per se ? Is there a real life example of this in betting ?
Not betting but in Deal or No Deal you’d often see people accept £80,000 even though they still had the £250,000.
Quite a few people would say the £80,000 would pay off their mortgage and that would make them financially secure for life.
Arguably the show doesn't want those kind of people on it - less drama, more rational thinking. Many on here (not everyone, for sure) would think yeah, 50 grand is nice but it won't change my world, a million would so I'll gamble.
Many people not on PB think I've never had 50 grand and I can definitely get it right now, I will thanks!
Interstingly when it first launched, as a publicity stunt the Daily Mail offered one reader the chance to win a pound a week for life.
The reason they went for this is that Alfred Harmsworth was told by a passer by that it would be life changing not to worry about where the rent was coming from.
As I recall it was won by a 20 year old sailor who used the newfound security he had to get married, and lived until 1956 - still drawing his pound a week for sixty years.
I was at Sandown yesterday afternoon when Rossa Ryan earned himself some quality time with the family.
Racecourse punters aren't stupid and three runner handicaps at 5/4, 7/4 and 11/4 aren't going to draw in the crowds to the ring.
There's been, I think, a societal change in attitudes to gambling in the past 30 years or so, probably since the introduction of the National Lottery which I consider a deeply pernicious tax on the poor. As everyone shows, the chances of winning that life changing amount are incredibly small - it even makes the Premium Bonds look an attractive option.
The problem is the presence of gambling on the High Street - in East Ham we have betting shops but also the mini-casinos (frequented and I suspect run by East Europeans). The shops have FOBTs as many of the local demographic might struggle with the nuances of the 4.00 at Chepstow and without the machines are probably not viable.
Oddly enough, having gone through a phase of trying to be welcome and opening, betting shops have reverted back to where they were when I marked the board in the early 80s - not as dark or as unforgiving but still.
We now have affordability checks being imposed by the Gambling Commission and despite a rearguard action from horse racing, the Government seems anxious to be seen to be doing something to help "problem" gambling which exists (no question). Ending bookamker sponsorship of horse races and bookmaker advertising on tv during the day will likely be future moves.
Many of us on here like a bet and whatever our area of "expertise", I'd like to think we gamble responsibly and even with a degree of logic though sometimes the evidence is less clear.
I was at Sandown yesterday afternoon when Rossa Ryan earned himself some quality time with the family.
Racecourse punters aren't stupid and three runner handicaps at 5/4, 7/4 and 11/4 aren't going to draw in the crowds to the ring.
There's been, I think, a societal change in attitudes to gambling in the past 30 years or so, probably since the introduction of the National Lottery which I consider a deeply pernicious tax on the poor. As everyone shows, the chances of winning that life changing amount are incredibly small - it even makes the Premium Bonds look an attractive option.
The problem is the presence of gambling on the High Street - in East Ham we have betting shops but also the mini-casinos (frequented and I suspect run by East Europeans). The shops have FOBTs as many of the local demographic might struggle with the nuances of the 4.00 at Chepstow and without the machines are probably not viable.
Oddly enough, having gone through a phase of trying to be welcome and opening, betting shops have reverted back to where they were when I marked the board in the early 80s - not as dark or as unforgiving but still.
We now have affordability checks being imposed by the Gambling Commission and despite a rearguard action from horse racing, the Government seems anxious to be seen to be doing something to help "problem" gambling which exists (no question). Ending bookamker sponsorship of horse races and bookmaker advertising on tv during the day will likely be future moves.
Many of us on here like a bet and whatever our area of "expertise", I'd like to think we gamble responsibly and even with a degree of logic though sometimes the evidence is less clear.
This is where I think the loss of the tote from being a horse racing entity (I know ownership was technically the state but run independent of politics) to another commercial bookie has not helped.
Many respectable small scale punters would bet with the tote cost in the knowledge it was not run by mr corporate or indeed illegal gangs or indeed by politicians but run by horse racing sympathisers .
Labour gains from Reform. Quite surprising - it’s true Reform heartland - but also given the area isn’t that far from Clacton, quite interesting.
Which raises the interesting possibility, which we have touched in the past couple of days, that Labour not the Conservatives might benefit from a Reform collapse as widely assumed, not least by the Conservatives themselves. ie it goes back to a 2024 situation. A complete collapse probably does benefit the Conservatives; a partial collapse may benefit Labour.
Agree. Labour have positioned themselves as a real alternative to Reform, with populist but not extreme approaches to migration and a new leader who understands communication with non anoraks and non Hampstead. The Tories have positioned themselves as Reformlite and said with great clarity that they want One Nationers to vote Labour or LD. Which they will unless and until the Tories put in a leader who understands what conservatism is, economic, fiscal and cultural.
Andy Burnham is just like Boris . Both very affable and can speak to normal humans perfectly at ease . Both his or gave the impression they wing it at times . It’s why both will have a strong personal vote as actual policy failings are more easily forgiven if the population can at least have a laugh or sympathise .
Probably an actionable statement; describing Andy B as "just like Boris".
Many of us on here like a bet and whatever our area of "expertise", I'd like to think we gamble responsibly and even with a degree of logic though sometimes the evidence is less clear.
The average punter is now hopelessly outgunned by the bookies when it comes to data and analysis so it's almost impossible to come out ahead on sports betting now. And, if you do manage it, the c-nts close your account.
I used to flog the bookies on pro-cycling because their odds setters obviously knew fuck all about it. They wised up around 2014-15 so I moved on to MotoGP where they were still clueless but they've greatly improved on that over the last few years.
I highly doubt any normal punter can come out ahead over the long term when betting on popular sports like EPL.
I was at Sandown yesterday afternoon when Rossa Ryan earned himself some quality time with the family.
Racecourse punters aren't stupid and three runner handicaps at 5/4, 7/4 and 11/4 aren't going to draw in the crowds to the ring.
There's been, I think, a societal change in attitudes to gambling in the past 30 years or so, probably since the introduction of the National Lottery which I consider a deeply pernicious tax on the poor. As everyone shows, the chances of winning that life changing amount are incredibly small - it even makes the Premium Bonds look an attractive option.
The problem is the presence of gambling on the High Street - in East Ham we have betting shops but also the mini-casinos (frequented and I suspect run by East Europeans). The shops have FOBTs as many of the local demographic might struggle with the nuances of the 4.00 at Chepstow and without the machines are probably not viable.
Oddly enough, having gone through a phase of trying to be welcome and opening, betting shops have reverted back to where they were when I marked the board in the early 80s - not as dark or as unforgiving but still.
We now have affordability checks being imposed by the Gambling Commission and despite a rearguard action from horse racing, the Government seems anxious to be seen to be doing something to help "problem" gambling which exists (no question). Ending bookamker sponsorship of horse races and bookmaker advertising on tv during the day will likely be future moves.
Many of us on here like a bet and whatever our area of "expertise", I'd like to think we gamble responsibly and even with a degree of logic though sometimes the evidence is less clear.
This is where I think the loss of the tote from being a horse racing entity (I know ownership was technically the state but run independent of politics) to another commercial bookie has not helped.
Many respectable small scale punters would bet with the tote cost in the knowledge it was not run by mr corporate or indeed illegal gangs or indeed by politicians but run by horse racing sympathisers .
That's a fair point though the deductions meant it functioned as a bookmaker.
It's been a long time since the Tote was run by Woodrow Wyatt.
Clearly the polling shows Trump's tariffs on neighbours like Mexico and Canada are unpopular with US voters. They want tougher border controls with Mexico not tariffs, Trump should just focus on his promises on that. In terms of tariffs on Chinese imports there will likely be more support, even Biden had those. There are also allegations of forced labour by China, although China denies this 'China has previously said it opposed any form of unilateral tariff, and denied allegations of forced labour.
"There is no so-called forced labour in China, and we oppose using this as an excuse for political manipulation," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.
But several international human rights groups have said forced labour does exist in China, particularly among Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang.'
Labour gains from Reform. Quite surprising - it’s true Reform heartland - but also given the area isn’t that far from Clacton, quite interesting.
Which raises the interesting possibility, which we have touched on in the past couple of days, that Labour might benefit from a Reform collapse, and not the Conservatives as widely assumed, including by the Conservatives themselves. ie we go back to a 2024 situation. A complete collapse probably does benefit the Conservatives; a partial collapse may benefit Labour.
The swing from Reform though was mainly Reform to Tory, Reform down 5% and Conservatives up 3%. The Greens were down 2% and Labour up 3% too
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Woke up this morning to what looked like a misty haze over our area in Deeside in Aberdeenshire but the really strong smell of smoke indicated otherwise. We initially thought that a wildfire had broken out nearby but apparently the wildfires over the otherside of the Cairngorms in the national park around Abernethy and Glenmore near where I grew up that they thought were finally under control have flared up again due to the wind changing and now it smells and feels like its on our doorstep. So despite a mountain range between us it has been brought home to us today that we are not that far as the crow flies...
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
Yes. The first £50,000 has more value than the second £50,000, and a lot more value than the 20th £50k.
The key in betting profitably, as Peter the Punter's articles told us, is to spread your bets across enough value bets that you come ahead on average. Not to lump a huge sum of money on one bet.
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
More specifically, it's avoiding the feeling you'd have if you chose the gamble and came away with nothing at all, that is motivating the statistically sub-optimal choice.
Yes. The decisive factor is not the size of the win, it's the size of the stake. Suppose I had a genuinely sound tip that the proper odds on a 20/1 horse was even money. Would I stake £50K on that chance? No. Once analysed the circumstances of this offer are the same.
I still suggest it's about avoiding the total loss.
Change the proposition to, say, a guaranteed £100,000 or a 50% chance of winning £1m and a 50% chance of winning £25,000, and I bet the second option suddenly becomes a lot more popular, despite its expected return hardly changing at all.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Yes of course . Miss a good gambling theory talk on here ! I think it applies to insurance as well .
The National Lottery works on the reverse basis. People are happy to buy a ticket with (at a guess) a value of 50p for a pound. They really don't mind the small loss, but the 1 in a million chance of life changing wealth is something they value more highly than the actual financial value of that chance.
Yes, the National Lottery is terrible value for money, paying only 50% back in prizes (vs 80% on that fruit machine in the pub, and 90%+ on most casino games).
But it’s the tiny chance of a million or more that keeps people playing.
OTOH, Lottery funded projects have provided my firm with 10-15% of my firm’s annual fee income over the the last twenty years
It looks like the Burnsiah Bounce at work. Unless local effects such as candidates are behind it. So worth watching the aggregate of the locals, going forward.
Woke up this morning to what looked like a misty haze over our area in Deeside in Aberdeenshire but the really strong smell of smoke indicated otherwise. We initially thought that a wildfire had broken out nearby but apparently the wildfires over the otherside of the Cairngorms in the national park around Abernethy and Glenmore near where I grew up that they thought were finally under control have flared up again due to the wind changing and now it smells and feels like its on our doorstep. So despite a mountain range between us it has been brought home to us today that we are not that far as the crow flies...
It could be worse. You could be in St. Petersburg, or near the Russian weapons factory in Kirov. Kirov is 1,350km from Ukraine but still managed to find themselves on fire this morning.
'UK and EU in 10% bracket for Trump's new tariffs, below the 12.5% tariff on nations including Australia, Brazil, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria and Russia, Saudi Arabia and China.
The 17 trading partners that will now have a 10% tariff include: Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad and Tobago.
The Trump administration says these countries have made commitments to adopt, and effectively enforce, forced labor import prohibitions.
Products from the European Union or Taiwan will also have a 10% tariff.
All other trading partners, from 41 countries, have failed to adopt a forced labor import prohibition and will have a 12.5% tariff rate.
These countries include: Algeria; Angola; Australia; the Bahamas; Bahrain; Brazil; Chile; China, People’s Republic of; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; Guyana; Hong Kong, China; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; Kuwait; Libya; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; Russia; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; South Korea; Switzerland; Thailand; Türkiye; United Arab Emirates; Uruguay; Venezuela; and Vietnam. '
'Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has said Prime Minister Andy Burnham is not looking at bringing in rent controls in England.
She told BBC Breakfast that changes made through the Renters' Rights Act, which came into effect in May, were "already having a significant impact on the market".
She added that controls which had been implemented in some areas of the UK over the past few years had not "necessarily brought rents down".
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
Labour gains from Reform. Quite surprising - it’s true Reform heartland - but also given the area isn’t that far from Clacton, quite interesting.
Which raises the interesting possibility, which we have touched on in the past couple of days, that Labour might benefit from a Reform collapse, and not the Conservatives as widely assumed, including by the Conservatives themselves. ie we go back to a 2024 situation. A complete collapse probably does benefit the Conservatives; a partial collapse may benefit Labour.
The swing from Reform though was mainly Reform to Tory, Reform down 5% and Conservatives up 3%. The Greens were down 2% and Labour up 3% too
Yes, on this particular result Labour and Conservatives have gained equally since the locals when they were on a notionally equal low score. If we read anything into it all, it's that Reform will likely still be the largest party but with a lower margin.
But the dynamics of how Reform shed votes, where they go to and what that would mean for the state of the parties is interesting.
Woke up this morning to what looked like a misty haze over our area in Deeside in Aberdeenshire but the really strong smell of smoke indicated otherwise. We initially thought that a wildfire had broken out nearby but apparently the wildfires over the otherside of the Cairngorms in the national park around Abernethy and Glenmore near where I grew up that they thought were finally under control have flared up again due to the wind changing and now it smells and feels like its on our doorstep. So despite a mountain range between us it has been brought home to us today that we are not that far as the crow flies...
It could be worse. You could be in St. Petersburg, or near the Russian weapons factory in Kirov. Kirov is 1,350km from Ukraine but still managed to find themselves on fire this morning.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
Fine but it’s no big deal . Burnham should remember he is not still mayor of Manchester. . He had done some tinkering at the very edges in an affable way . The country needs a lot more though than this
The thing about the £50k question is that your attitude will be different if it is more than two years of your income rather than two months. It's also different if £50k is 5% or less of the current value of your home or all of it.
Yes, there is a shift happening. I posted the other day about Laura Loomer being in Ukraine with a massive volte face on Ukraine, to the point of calling herself an “asshole” for her prior views against Ukraine and pro Russia.
Labour gains from Reform. Quite surprising - it’s true Reform heartland - but also given the area isn’t that far from Clacton, quite interesting.
Which raises the interesting possibility, which we have touched on in the past couple of days, that Labour might benefit from a Reform collapse, and not the Conservatives as widely assumed, including by the Conservatives themselves. ie we go back to a 2024 situation. A complete collapse probably does benefit the Conservatives; a partial collapse may benefit Labour.
The swing from Reform though was mainly Reform to Tory, Reform down 5% and Conservatives up 3%. The Greens were down 2% and Labour up 3% too
Yes, on this particular result Labour and Conservatives have gained equally since the locals when they were on a notionally equal low score. If we read anything into it all, it's that Reform will likely still be the largest party but with a lower margin.
But the dynamics of how Reform shed votes, where they go to and what that would mean for the state of the parties is interesting.
The main swing to Burnham Labour seems to be from the LDs and Greens, Reform are overall treading water and where they are down a little it is the Tories benefiting
Yes, there is a shift happening. I posted the other day about Laura Loomer being in Ukraine with a massive volte face on Ukraine, to the point of calling herself an “asshole” for her prior views against Ukraine and pro Russia.
This is an important and necessary interview. It records a public break with Russian narratives and propaganda by part of the MAGA movement. President Trump has already personally shared the first fragments of the conversation on Truth Social with the caption "Very good!!!"
I don't know who Laura Loomer is, beyond being some manner of MAGA influencer, but she's apparently recently declared that she was misled on Russia v Ukraine, and it's currently in Ukraine creating lots of online content about the war, taking the piss out of Tucker Carlson's pro-Russia trip to Moscow, and presenting Ukraine as a worthy ally to support in its war.
If she can get some traction on MAGA opinion on Ukraine this could be very consequential. Even Trump has commented approvingly in response to one of her recent videos.
I don't know who Laura Loomer is, beyond being some manner of MAGA influencer, but she's apparently recently declared that she was misled on Russia v Ukraine, and it's currently in Ukraine creating lots of online content about the war, taking the piss out of Tucker Carlson's pro-Russia trip to Moscow, and presenting Ukraine as a worthy ally to support in its war.
If she can get some traction on MAGA opinion on Ukraine this could be very consequential. Even Trump has commented approvingly in response to one of her recent videos.
She is very closely involved with the MAgA leadership and Trump and is considered both a weathervane and a mouthpiece for what the cult is thinking.
The Democrats are pouring money into 4 Senate seats they think that they can swing: North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa (!!) and Alaska (!!!)
On the other hand they seem to be struggling in Maine after their candidate stood down on a sex scandal and are tearing each other's eyes out in Michigan.
I think Maine will be a flip once the new Dem candidate settles in.
Maine is not natural MAGA territory and Susan Collins has been treading a fine line trying to appease the MAGAs in the GOP nationally without alienating too many Maine voters.
With Trump's current standing that is not going to hold - I can't see Maine going for a Senator that backs Trump despite regularly having "concerns".
Course. The Burnham is just like Boris is designed to get folk to say OK. He'll be a disaster then. Ignoring the fact that it's the DIFFERENCES with Burnham that made Boris unsuitable. The similarities were fine.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
Some might say Harry should bugger off and pay for his own security. I'd be among them. Wanting to no longer have the duties of a royal while retaining the privileges is nonsense.
In principle, security protection should depend on risk, not status, and if you or I were top targets we'd be entitled to top protection. In reality it's not quite as good as that, but I've seen the level of security wax and wane for well-known figures according to perceived risk.
Yes, there is a shift happening. I posted the other day about Laura Loomer being in Ukraine with a massive volte face on Ukraine, to the point of calling herself an “asshole” for her prior views against Ukraine and pro Russia.
Loomer has spent a couple of days in Kyiv, visiting everywhere from the famous bombed McDonald’s to the monastry droned a couple of weeks ago.
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
More specifically, it's avoiding the feeling you'd have if you chose the gamble and came away with nothing at all, that is motivating the statistically sub-optimal choice.
Yes. The decisive factor is not the size of the win, it's the size of the stake. Suppose I had a genuinely sound tip that the proper odds on a 20/1 horse was even money. Would I stake £50K on that chance? No. Once analysed the circumstances of this offer are the same.
Almost, but not quite because of loss aversion.
ETA my analogy was nonsense!
I think we are looking at odds when what we really need to look at is opportunity cost.
So a lottery ticket has little opportunity cost, it's that or a mars bar say.
once you start reaching larger sums of money things change £1000 is a holiday, £10,000+ for a lot of people is a vastly better car.
Reform should not be losing places like Grays. This isn't great for Farage.
Wait and see what happens if he loses the by-election to the bin.
WRT the byelection, did many people predict this strange development:
There are 34 candidates, with only two having any recognition, status or form, Farage and Binface. The mainstream media have to obey election rules about fair coverage. Much of the media have to list all 34 candidates if they mention any individual candidate. It isn't possible to cover the election without mentioning Farage. So they deal with it by giving no coverage at all, the only lawful step that makes sense. If you google 'Clacton by-election' (news) almost nothing comes up. The BBC have nothing much apart from a statutory list. Fascinating.
It's disappointing.
There are still 19 days to go. At two candidates per day the BBC could do a decent interview with each candidate so that the voters have some information to go on. That would be fair coverage for all - not every story has to give equal time to every candidate.
Some of the candidates seem to be quite interesting. One of them was involved in the case that resulted in Lutfur Rahman being convicted of electoral fraud, for example.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
Yes I understand . But passing why this would mean it pays to be a gambler per se ? Is there a real life example of this in betting ?
Not betting but in Deal or No Deal you’d often see people accept £80,000 even though they still had the £250,000.
Quite a few people would say the £80,000 would pay off their mortgage and that would make them financially secure for life.
I think I would take the £50K, the reasons being non financial. For me betting is only a pastime with no seriousness about riches. The moment chance taking is about winning and losing serious money its attraction changes. The formula becomes: If I take the risk there is a 50% chance of losing £50K. Only people who would stake £50K would certainly take the chance. That's not many.
Surely the rational approach is to find a wealthy counterparty to take the back side of the bet. They get £500k if you win, they pay you £450k if you lose. That way you get £500k guaranteed, and they make an average profit of £25k for every person they cover like this.
(About 15 years ago, I made quite a lot of money working through the bookies freebies via matched betting)
Labour gains from Reform. Quite surprising - it’s true Reform heartland - but also given the area isn’t that far from Clacton, quite interesting.
Which raises the interesting possibility, which we have touched on in the past couple of days, that Labour might benefit from a Reform collapse, and not the Conservatives as widely assumed, including by the Conservatives themselves. ie we go back to a 2024 situation. A complete collapse probably does benefit the Conservatives; a partial collapse may benefit Labour.
The swing from Reform though was mainly Reform to Tory, Reform down 5% and Conservatives up 3%. The Greens were down 2% and Labour up 3% too
Yes, on this particular result Labour and Conservatives have gained equally since the locals when they were on a notionally equal low score. If we read anything into it all, it's that Reform will likely still be the largest party but with a lower margin.
But the dynamics of how Reform shed votes, where they go to and what that would mean for the state of the parties is interesting.
The main swing to Burnham Labour seems to be from the LDs and Greens, Reform are overall treading water and where they are down a little it is the Tories benefiting
If Labour does a better job in government (yet to be seen, of course), tactical voting between the centre left parties will be more efficient come the next GE. Having an unpopular government, compared to the main opposition party (whoever that might be, right now) makes voters more reluctant to vote tactically for a government party candidate.
Course. The Burnham is just like Boris is designed to get folk to say OK. He'll be a disaster then. Ignoring the fact that it's the DIFFERENCES with Burnham that made Boris unsuitable. The similarities were fine.
I suppose a bid difference is that Burnham has not won a general election or even a formal leadership contest. The scrutiny must therefore be more
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
And that is an artefact of politicians without principles claiming to be "liberal" as part of the act - "I am in favour of being nice to *everyone*"
Course. The Burnham is just like Boris is designed to get folk to say OK. He'll be a disaster then. Ignoring the fact that it's the DIFFERENCES with Burnham that made Boris unsuitable. The similarities were fine.
But were they?
Putting the personal immorality to one side (and AB is definitely cleaner than BJ), the essence of Boris was his line about having your cake and eating it.
That's a brilliant line, especially when coupled with an ability to discern and repeat what your audience wants to hear. It's a terrible way to govern in a finite world. You can't have the cake you have just eaten, real politics is taking a bit more from Peter to give a bit more to Paul.
Boris hated that sort of talk, seeing it as doomster/gloomstering. I'm getting the same vibe from our new PM. He may confound me by calmly explaining to meaningful chunks of the country need to pay more/get less... but I'm not seeing it.
I'm still seeing a better Boris, and that's not going to help the country.
Suppose the amounts were £50m or 50/50 chance of £1bn - for most people it makes sense to actually go for the certain but lesser value choice.
Yes I understand . But passing why this would mean it pays to be a gambler per se ? Is there a real life example of this in betting ?
Not betting but in Deal or No Deal you’d often see people accept £80,000 even though they still had the £250,000.
Quite a few people would say the £80,000 would pay off their mortgage and that would make them financially secure for life.
I think I would take the £50K, the reasons being non financial. For me betting is only a pastime with no seriousness about riches. The moment chance taking is about winning and losing serious money its attraction changes. The formula becomes: If I take the risk there is a 50% chance of losing £50K. Only people who would stake £50K would certainly take the chance. That's not many.
Surely the rational approach is to find a wealthy counterparty to take the back side of the bet. They get £500k if you win, they pay you £450k if you lose. That way you get £500k guaranteed, and they make an average profit of £25k for every person they cover like this.
(About 15 years ago, I made quite a lot of money working through the bookies freebies via matched betting)
Not clear from the wording but you may not get the chance to set up a counterparty. If you knew in advance you might be offered these options you could make preparations, but I think you're meant to see the question as an unhedged choice.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
I agree with some of that, but not entirely.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Reform should not be losing places like Grays. This isn't great for Farage.
Wait and see what happens if he loses the by-election to the bin.
WRT the byelection, did many people predict this strange development:
There are 34 candidates, with only two having any recognition, status or form, Farage and Binface. The mainstream media have to obey election rules about fair coverage. Much of the media have to list all 34 candidates if they mention any individual candidate. It isn't possible to cover the election without mentioning Farage. So they deal with it by giving no coverage at all, the only lawful step that makes sense. If you google 'Clacton by-election' (news) almost nothing comes up. The BBC have nothing much apart from a statutory list. Fascinating.
It's disappointing.
There are still 19 days to go. At two candidates per day the BBC could do a decent interview with each candidate so that the voters have some information to go on. That would be fair coverage for all - not every story has to give equal time to every candidate.
Some of the candidates seem to be quite interesting. One of them was involved in the case that resulted in Lutfur Rahman being convicted of electoral fraud, for example.
I think this depends on whether the media exist to assist campaigning generally or for something else. It seems to me that constituency campaigning is a matter for the candidate assisted by the free distribution to all electors they get in return for standing. Door knocking, speechifying, holding meetings, posters, explaining your policy at street level is the stuff of genuinely local democracy.
The wider media coverage, including the BBC, is about both being fair and also about the wider political interest. In normal by elections the BBC give almost no detailed coverage to tiny parties and independents who will only get a few votes. This election is unique. Only one party can win out of 34 candidates, so fair coverage of the main candidates is not possible. There are no others.
I think the mainstream media are right to ignore it, and leave it to local campaigning given the legal constraints.
Burnham is a Labour Boris in the sense he's been put in by his party's MPs primarily for his perceived electoral appeal. This doesn't mean he's at all similar as a person or a politician. If he turns out to be 'like Boris' in that literal sense I would have to abandon Labour at the next election, look at Green or LD or an independent with a nice kind face instead - but I'm confident I won't have to face that trauma.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
One feature I've noted from these recent results is that there's either a LD vote or there isn't; in other words either it's substantial or it's almost derisory.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
I agree with some of that, but not entirely.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
The problem with free trade is when people try and "defect". And managing the response to that.
Which is why the EU rules on free trade are quite rigid - to prevent national government finding/inventing exceptions.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
I agree with some of that, but not entirely.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
The basic principle of free trade - the law of comparative advantage - is sufficiently well established that it is beyond serious argument in economic terms. You only have to think about oats and bananas to work it out in principle.
But life is loads more than economic maximalism. You only have to think about nuclear materials and machine guns to work that out. Issues of national security, food security and social stability and cohesion are unavoidable.
Which means that the only possibility is managed and qualified free trade, just as the only way with private enterprise is regulated private enterprise. Once you are managing and regulating both people's lives and huge economic interests you are into and unending power struggle both nationally and internationally. Which is what we have, and always will. The aim - and the best we can do - must always be to limit that to boring arguments about single markets, WTO and international treaty without going to war about it.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
It’s pretty hard to endanger anyone if locked on your own for 24 hrs a day .
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
It’s pretty hard to endanger anyone if locked on your own for 24 hrs a day .
You can endanger yourself.
It is not especially uncommon that nasty, violent killers are Fucked In Da Head, and need head shrinking as well as being locked up. Hence the existence of secure psychiatric hospital wards.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
I agree with some of that, but not entirely.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
The problem with free trade is when people try and "defect". And managing the response to that.
Which is why the EU rules on free trade are quite rigid - to prevent national government finding/inventing exceptions.
The EU's internal rules are rigid indeed. For the relevant bits of the single market the EU functions as a sovereign nation. But internal free trade is not the big issue. It's more or less the definition of a modern wealthy state is that it is an internal free market. But the important bit about free trade is not internal but external. One of the objections to the EU is that it operates in a protectionist way towards others, having for example tariffs on African agricultural produce, impoverishing much poorer countries without good reason.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
I agree with some of that, but not entirely.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
The basic principle of free trade - the law of comparative advantage - is sufficiently well established that it is beyond serious argument in economic terms. You only have to think about oats and bananas to work it out in principle.
But life is loads more than economic maximalism. You only have to think about nuclear materials and machine guns to work that out. Issues of national security, food security and social stability and cohesion are unavoidable.
Which means that the only possibility is managed and qualified free trade, just as the only way with private enterprise is regulated private enterprise. Once you are managing and regulating both people's lives and huge economic interests you are into and unending power struggle both nationally and internationally. Which is what we have, and always will. The aim - and the best we can do - must always be to limit that to boring arguments about single markets, WTO and international treaty without going to war about it.
In particular, the Western world has failed to stand up to China manipulating markets and stealing IP since their introduction into the WTO a quarter of a century ago.
Now we’re in a situation where much Western industry is totally hollowed-out and sent to a country that has always been intending to gain leverage over the West by monopolisation of key industries.
Undoing that mess, is going to be the biggest geopolitical crisis of the next decade.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Assessing everything Donald Trump does as wrong because he's doing it is one of the best and most efficient techiques in punditry. You will hardly ever be wrong and it frees up bandwidth for other more interesting and challenging tasks.
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Assessing everything Donald Trump does as wrong because he's doing it is one of the best and most efficient techiques in punditry. You will hardly ever be wrong and it frees up bandwidth for other more interesting and challenging tasks.
The betting angle is that you will be right 95% of the time.
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
It’s pretty hard to endanger anyone if locked on your own for 24 hrs a day .
You can endanger yourself.
It is not especially uncommon that nasty, violent killers are Fucked In Da Head, and need head shrinking as well as being locked up. Hence the existence of secure psychiatric hospital wards.
It is not easy for me to comprehend how it could be possible to want to kill small girls and to act it out and still be regarded as sane. What sort of mental health is this that we are talking about? Which types of sanity does these things?
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
Oh I agree entirely with you on that.
But all I actually see is the Northern MPs bumming out a day early from their commitments in Westminster.
If Burnham can however succeed in moving vast swathes of the civil service out of London, then I’m definitely in favour.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
Oh I agree entirely with you on that.
But all I actually see is the Northern MPs bumming out a day early from their commitments in Westminster.
If Burnham can however succeed in moving vast swathes of the civil service out of London, then I’m definitely in favour.
MPs have always spent Fridays working in their constituency, so that is not much change.
If Sir Humphrey is dragged North with Hacker every week, or even better Sir Humphrey's start living and working up here, then things might begin to change.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
For those who already dislike and distrust him maybe.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
The only way of doing that is to move the capital. Parliament, Government, the works. Plenty of countries do it, usually when the old capital gets unsustainable as a city rather than to stop it sucking in resources.
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
It doesn't seem to occur to Reform and all the associated online armchair prison officers and amateur shrinks that it is possible Rudukaban has been move because it was unsafe for the other prisoners and staff as he could not be managed even in a high security prison.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
It’s pretty hard to endanger anyone if locked on your own for 24 hrs a day .
You can endanger yourself.
It is not especially uncommon that nasty, violent killers are Fucked In Da Head, and need head shrinking as well as being locked up. Hence the existence of secure psychiatric hospital wards.
I would think the risk of him endangering himself is not that high on people’s minds as a problem
Another clear benefit to the tariffs in America is the conversion of parts of the left to economic literacy on trade at least.
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
Free trade and comparative advantage have always been anathema to the hard left, as they have generally been to the hard right.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
I agree with some of that, but not entirely.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
The problem with free trade is when people try and "defect". And managing the response to that.
Which is why the EU rules on free trade are quite rigid - to prevent national government finding/inventing exceptions.
The EU's internal rules are rigid indeed. For the relevant bits of the single market the EU functions as a sovereign nation. But internal free trade is not the big issue. It's more or less the definition of a modern wealthy state is that it is an internal free market. But the important bit about free trade is not internal but external. One of the objections to the EU is that it operates in a protectionist way towards others, having for example tariffs on African agricultural produce, impoverishing much poorer countries without good reason.
The EU is protectionist but the tariff regime towards developing countries isn't substantially different from the one operated by the UK for example. ie external trading barriers are similar everywhere, except Trump of course, the key EU difference is the suppression of trading barriers within the consortium.
Should add internal trade barriers can be surprisingly large in some countries, eg between Canadian provinces.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Someone near the beginning of the alphabet ?
Aaron Aardvark might have missed his moment to shine....
'Our first voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) conducted since Andy Burnham became prime minister shows no significant change, with a close race between the three largest parties
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
Given how much Burnham's accession has been telegraphed in advance, I would have though much of any Burnham bounce is already accounted for. Will have to see if "cost of living" measures will have any impact but I suspect not - the Vat cut on electricity won't save much, the big bill in winter is gas. Buses most people don't use and the change isn't until January. Business rates for hospitality - technical, and the price of a pint isn't going to come down. Was there anything else? It just sounds like needless tinkering so far, but admittedly there wasn't much Burnham could do in Week 1
Everything in order! Goal one of the much maligned centrists is to avoid a Reform government. They are now about 7/1 against a majority - about level with the Tories. The route to a Tory majority in 2029 looks blocked in every direction. The chances of Labour led or Labour majority government are now high. Personally I would put it at 75%, making various bets value.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Being a candidate for MP seems to be the last place you can be called something "by reputation and repute" rather than your legal name. I'm fairly sure Howling Laud Hope is actually called Alan and plenty of candidates stand as say "Bill" rather than their Sunday name. Count Binface seems to actually be called Jonathan David Harvey, at least according to Wikipedia, and Binface is no more than a stage name
The BBC have a list of the 34 Clacton candidates, with a few details, which is scrupulously fair and balanced, and therefore unintentionally hilarious, and shows clearly why the only possible and lawful response of the mainstream media is to give no coverage at all to the election.
Quite interesting though - a change from normal politics, giving fringe politicians a shot at gaining attention. Can't see it catching on but fun for a change.
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
'Andy Burnham will hold his first meeting at the new No 10 North in Manchester later on Friday.
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
It has the potential to be a really bad look, if it seems like he’s going home to his missus on Thursday nights every weekend, and dragging a bunch of other Northern-based ministers with him to get out of London as a priority.
Anything "has the potential" to be a really bad or really good look.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
Shifting rescources from the centre is a laudable and welcome aim.
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
You're prejudging the policy before you've seen what it will/might entail.
My point is that there is no published policy, simply everyone taking the ECML train on Thursday rather than Friday.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
I can still see an election within a year, when Burnham has put together a programme and would rather like 5 years to implement it. Maybe taking advantage of a temporary dip in Reform support, if he can engineer one.
Some might say Harry should bugger off and pay for his own security. I'd be among them. Wanting to no longer have the duties of a royal while retaining the privileges is nonsense.
In principle, security protection should depend on risk, not status, and if you or I were top targets we'd be entitled to top protection. In reality it's not quite as good as that, but I've seen the level of security wax and wane for well-known figures according to perceived risk.
Nick you make a very good point and its why I think that Prince Harry and his family should without question get top Home Office security when they visit the UK, and it is why I cannot believe despite how hard Prince Harry has had to fight to get this only to be knocked back! The utterly relentless and obsessional negative media he and his wife have suffered in the media coverage over here borders on the unhealthy and all because he chose not to sit quietly in the shadows only to be paraded on state occassions in the UK and he broke the Royal cardinal rule of never challenging the media stories printed and because lets face it, stories about the Royal family sells papers and as its their bread and butter they have got used to printing what ever the hell they like about them.
We are now in a social media age where worryingly many of our cross party elected politicians face daily threats both to them and their families and now require added security for their safety simply because of their political beliefs and sadly we have seen the tragic consequences of this far too often in the last few years. Prince Harry is not only the second son of the King, he also served two active tours of duty in the Middle East while he served in the military. Not only that, he has been a huge advocate of military veteran causes and created the Invictus Games foundation. But I have no doubt that the refusal of special security for Prince Harry and his family when visiting the UK is in no small part down to the media pressure that it would cause which is ironic considering the media tsunami that surrounds him and would border on hysteria if he ever attended a public event here with Meghan and their children today.
Just last week some journalist tried to defend the fact he and his family didn't require special protection when visiting the UK because he was able to sneak Meghan and his children into the UK for a private visit with his father and Camilla at Highgrove totally under the radar of the UK media and the public. But with the next Invictus Games being held in the UK Prince Harry and his wife should be able to feel safe to attend well publicised events in the lead up to and during the event with proper security and shame on our Government and all the cross party elected MPs at Westminster who cannot see or understand that considering sadly the risks they too now face in this day age for simple putting themselves out there in public so they are able to do their elected job.
Seriously, the silence of our elected politicians on this issue despite their own experiences in the face of media and public pressure despite the equally serious risks to Prince Harry and his family is deafening and shameful in light of what Prince Harry has done over the last decade to hightlight the plight of our veterans and others in different countries across the world and then has brought them together regularly with his sterling work with the Invictus Games Foundation..
Comments
There are 34 candidates, with only two having any recognition, status or form, Farage and Binface. The mainstream media have to obey election rules about fair coverage. Much of the media have to list all 34 candidates if they mention any individual candidate. It isn't possible to cover the election without mentioning Farage. So they deal with it by giving no coverage at all, the only lawful step that makes sense. If you google 'Clacton by-election' (news) almost nothing comes up. The BBC have nothing much apart from a statutory list. Fascinating.
As @Battlebus Points out below, Mr Timms is now responsible for both DWP and Housing. Given how much money the DWP spends on housing benefit, that might be a massive incentive for the department to do some out-of-the-box thinking.
As an example, I’d offer social tenants in London monthly cash payments for a few years to move elsewhere splitting the difference on the rents.
The reason they went for this is that Alfred Harmsworth was told by a passer by that it would be life changing not to worry about where the rent was coming from.
As I recall it was won by a 20 year old sailor who used the newfound security he had to get married, and lived until 1956 - still drawing his pound a week for sixty years.
I was at Sandown yesterday afternoon when Rossa Ryan earned himself some quality time with the family.
Racecourse punters aren't stupid and three runner handicaps at 5/4, 7/4 and 11/4 aren't going to draw in the crowds to the ring.
There's been, I think, a societal change in attitudes to gambling in the past 30 years or so, probably since the introduction of the National Lottery which I consider a deeply pernicious tax on the poor. As everyone shows, the chances of winning that life changing amount are incredibly small - it even makes the Premium Bonds look an attractive option.
The problem is the presence of gambling on the High Street - in East Ham we have betting shops but also the mini-casinos (frequented and I suspect run by East Europeans). The shops have FOBTs as many of the local demographic might struggle with the nuances of the 4.00 at Chepstow and without the machines are probably not viable.
Oddly enough, having gone through a phase of trying to be welcome and opening, betting shops have reverted back to where they were when I marked the board in the early 80s - not as dark or as unforgiving but still.
We now have affordability checks being imposed by the Gambling Commission and despite a rearguard action from horse racing, the Government seems anxious to be seen to be doing something to help "problem" gambling which exists (no question). Ending bookamker sponsorship of horse races and bookmaker advertising on tv during the day will likely be future moves.
Many of us on here like a bet and whatever our area of "expertise", I'd like to think we gamble responsibly and even with a degree of logic though sometimes the evidence is less clear.
Many respectable small scale punters would bet with the tote cost in the knowledge it was not run by mr corporate or indeed illegal gangs or indeed by politicians but run by horse racing sympathisers .
Good morning one and all.
I used to flog the bookies on pro-cycling because their odds setters obviously knew fuck all about it. They wised up around 2014-15 so I moved on to MotoGP where they were still clueless but they've greatly improved on that over the last few years.
I highly doubt any normal punter can come out ahead over the long term when betting on popular sports like EPL.
It's been a long time since the Tote was run by Woodrow Wyatt.
Money's too tight to mention in the Kremlin nowadays.
Tim Pool
@Timcast
Ukraine has been fighting for their very existence against an evil dictator
I see now the importance of the Ukrainian victory against Russia
I hope Trump and the people of the United States will lend their support
12:42 am · 24 Jul 2026
·
https://x.com/Timcast/status/2080438553717129383?s=20
"There is no so-called forced labour in China, and we oppose using this as an excuse for political manipulation," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.
But several international human rights groups have said forced labour does exist in China, particularly among Muslim ethnic minorities in Xinjiang.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgj61j6l08o?at_medium=social&at_link_origin=BBCBreaking&at_link_id=828D0CAA-86DD-11F1-8D66-FC965BA00050&at_link_type=web_link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_ptr_name=twitter
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/2080433731463217540?s=20
Not because they have suddenly understood the simple economics of comparative advantage - if they understood that, they wouldn't be lefties.
It's because anything Trump does is evil, therefore tariffs must be evil, therefore the free trade that they've been campaigning against for 30 years must have its points after all.
A friend of mine in LA has been through exactly this and it is very entertaining to watch him tie himself in knots thinking it through.
A classic case of coming to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reason.
The key in betting profitably, as Peter the Punter's articles told us, is to spread your bets across enough value bets that you come ahead on average. Not to lump a huge sum of money on one bet.
Change the proposition to, say, a guaranteed £100,000 or a 50% chance of winning £1m and a 50% chance of winning £25,000, and I bet the second option suddenly becomes a lot more popular, despite its expected return hardly changing at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlw69p6lyeo
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/2080569508847112650
The 17 trading partners that will now have a 10% tariff include: Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad and Tobago.
The Trump administration says these countries have made commitments to adopt, and effectively enforce, forced labor import prohibitions.
Products from the European Union or Taiwan will also have a 10% tariff.
All other trading partners, from 41 countries, have failed to adopt a forced labor import prohibition and will have a 12.5% tariff rate.
These countries include: Algeria; Angola; Australia; the Bahamas; Bahrain; Brazil; Chile; China, People’s Republic of; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; Guyana; Hong Kong, China; Iraq; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; Kuwait; Libya; Morocco; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Peru; the Philippines; Qatar; Russia; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; South Korea; Switzerland; Thailand; Türkiye; United Arab Emirates; Uruguay; Venezuela; and Vietnam. '
https://abcnews.com/Business/trump-set-impose-sweeping-tariffs-60-trade-partners/story?id=135020049
She told BBC Breakfast that changes made through the Renters' Rights Act, which came into effect in May, were "already having a significant impact on the market".
She added that controls which had been implemented in some areas of the UK over the past few years had not "necessarily brought rents down".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2dg54vprno
The branch of Downing Street in the North West will form part of the prime minister's aim to shift power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions across the country.
Ministers Lucy Powell and Louise Haigh will also operate regularly from the new site, with up to 300 civil servants expected to join them by the end of next year.
On Friday in Manchester, Burnham will chair a meeting of the National Economic Council, a cabinet committee first launched in 2008 to respond to economic challenges around the UK.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgvyr76973o
But the dynamics of how Reform shed votes, where they go to and what that would mean for the state of the parties is interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewr57kd21vo
It's also different if £50k is 5% or less of the current value of your home or all of it.
This is an important and necessary interview. It records a public break with Russian narratives and propaganda by part of the MAGA movement. President Trump has already personally shared the first fragments of the conversation on Truth Social with the caption "Very good!!!"
https://bsky.app/profile/antongerashchenko.bsky.social/post/3mrex5jjp2k2o
If she can get some traction on MAGA opinion on Ukraine this could be very consequential. Even Trump has commented approvingly in response to one of her recent videos.
BREAKING: Former Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp named the new Head Coach of Germany ⚽
Maine is not natural MAGA territory and Susan Collins has been treading a fine line trying to appease the MAGAs in the GOP nationally without alienating too many Maine voters.
With Trump's current standing that is not going to hold - I can't see Maine going for a Senator that backs Trump despite regularly having "concerns".
He'll have to get in quick, though, before Zelenskyy tells him that he'll show him how it's done!
Ignoring the fact that it's the DIFFERENCES with Burnham that made Boris unsuitable.
The similarities were fine.
I'm not convinced that "the PM is having a WFH day" is going to cut through as much as the others.
Distributing power- great. Changing the location of the one centre of power- less great.
https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/2079548335631863877
https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/2080007042765324349
Zelensky’s team reached out to her, and she got an interview with him yesterday. It probably airs tomorrow.
https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/2080543550605803899
Don’t underestimate the influence she has with the administration, she’s very well connected to Trump’s team.
All good news for Ukraine.
So a lottery ticket has little opportunity cost, it's that or a mars bar say.
once you start reaching larger sums of money things change £1000 is a holiday, £10,000+ for a lot of people is a vastly better car.
There are still 19 days to go. At two candidates per day the BBC could do a decent interview with each candidate so that the voters have some information to go on. That would be fair coverage for all - not every story has to give equal time to every candidate.
Some of the candidates seem to be quite interesting. One of them was involved in the case that resulted in Lutfur Rahman being convicted of electoral fraud, for example.
They are the ideological bedrock of what we now call centrism, but what we used to call liberalism. When people say “liberals don’t have any principles, beyond triangulation” I usually point in this direction.
(About 15 years ago, I made quite a lot of money working through the bookies freebies via matched betting)
Which do you think it is possible to throw further: a baguette or a naan bread?
Greens coming out strongly for baguettes.
(Actually they are all wrong. The current answer is naan)
https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260723-0ad16-3
BBC News
Putting the personal immorality to one side (and AB is definitely cleaner than BJ), the essence of Boris was his line about having your cake and eating it.
That's a brilliant line, especially when coupled with an ability to discern and repeat what your audience wants to hear. It's a terrible way to govern in a finite world. You can't have the cake you have just eaten, real politics is taking a bit more from Peter to give a bit more to Paul.
Boris hated that sort of talk, seeing it as doomster/gloomstering. I'm getting the same vibe from our new PM. He may confound me by calmly explaining to meaningful chunks of the country need to pay more/get less... but I'm not seeing it.
I'm still seeing a better Boris, and that's not going to help the country.
My impression is that he means to shift resources from the centre.
Regional mayors to take key roles in UK policy decisions as part of No 10 North plans
Burnham says ‘no one in government loses when power is shared’ as he revives Brown-era national economic council
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/23/regional-mayors-to-take-key-roles-in-uk-policy-decisions-as-part-of-no-10-north-plans
Whether it works is a separate question, but it's not simply PR.
The hard right on economics has always been split between nationalist autarchs and libertarian believers in free markets and free trade. The former obviously hate free trade while the latter adore it. The far left don't understand economics so who cares?
And I don't agree that free trade is the ideological bedrock of centrism for two reasons. Firstly, centrism doesn't have an ideological bedrock, as it thinks of itself as pragmatic. "What matters is what works, etc". Second, and related, many centrists adopted free trade out of pragmatism, because it is undoubtedly superior to protectionism, not out of ideological commitment.
Countries' relationships with free trade often tells you as much about them and the times they are living in as it does about the issue itself. We usually think of ourselves as a free trading nation, but in the 1930s we embraced protectionism, and arguably (I think wrongly) recovered from the depression because of it. The Americans had to drag us kicking and screaming into the GATT/WTO order after 1945. It wasn't until the Thatcher governments of the 1980s that we were fully convinced. The Americans went the opposite way - protectionist before the war, free trading once they saw the damage it had done and then back towards protectionism now.
The economic arguments don't change much, but the people and their countries do.
Good piece of Trump trolling.
https://x.com/BlueGeorgia/status/2080409920185241713
Ref: 23% (no change from 19-20 Jul)
Lab: 21% (+1)
Con: 20% (-1)
LD: 14% (+2)
Grn: 13% (-1)
Res: 4% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)
PC: 1% (-1)
Your: 0% (=)
Oth: 1% (=)'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2080571714061160585?s=20
'Although our latest voting intention poll (22-23 July 2026) shows all parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, it reaffirms the tightening of the race seen in recent months, with Labour up five points from its low of 16% recorded as recently as May'
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2080571717315858774?s=20
The wider media coverage, including the BBC, is about both being fair and also about the wider political interest. In normal by elections the BBC give almost no detailed coverage to tiny parties and independents who will only get a few votes. This election is unique. Only one party can win out of 34 candidates, so fair coverage of the main candidates is not possible. There are no others.
I think the mainstream media are right to ignore it, and leave it to local campaigning given the legal constraints.
🌳 CON: 35.2% (-2.1)
🔶 LDM: 29.5% (-3.1)
➡️ RFM: 28.7% (New)
🌍 GRN: 6.6% (-2.0)
No LAB (-21.5) as previous.
Conservative HOLD.
Changes w/ 2024.
https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/2080558029628465552?s=20
Presumably 1. Farage 2. Binface. But is there any guess what 3rd place might be?
Which is why the EU rules on free trade are quite rigid - to prevent national government finding/inventing exceptions.
https://www.nowcast.uk/home/seat-calculator
So Reform would win most seats but Burnham could stay UK PM with LD, SNP and Green support.
Though Reform and the Conservatives would have a majority of seats in England
However, simply shifting himself and his close colleagues away from the centre for half of the working week, comes across as very different.
I have no idea nor do they but one of the reasons given was "could not be managed safely in a prison environment".
But life is loads more than economic maximalism. You only have to think about nuclear materials and machine guns to work that out. Issues of national security, food security and social stability and cohesion are unavoidable.
Which means that the only possibility is managed and qualified free trade, just as the only way with private enterprise is regulated private enterprise. Once you are managing and regulating both people's lives and huge economic interests you are into and unending power struggle both nationally and internationally. Which is what we have, and always will. The aim - and the best we can do - must always be to limit that to boring arguments about single markets, WTO and international treaty without going to war about it.
For people in the North? I doubt it.
We have been screwed over for years by selfish London based Civil Servants whose idea of investing in the North was building another trainline in London, starting with London to Birmingham leg, then cancelling everything North of Birmingham.
The selfish Civil Servants keep adding infrastructure where they are, but anyone else? Screw them.
Nothing will change until the leadership of the Civil Service is no longer in London. Had this been in place 10 years ago do you think HS2 would have been cancelled in the North? I am sceptical.
It is not especially uncommon that nasty, violent killers are Fucked In Da Head, and need head shrinking as well as being locked up. Hence the existence of secure psychiatric hospital wards.
Now we’re in a situation where much Western industry is totally hollowed-out and sent to a country that has always been intending to gain leverage over the West by monopolisation of key industries.
Undoing that mess, is going to be the biggest geopolitical crisis of the next decade.
But all I actually see is the Northern MPs bumming out a day early from their commitments in Westminster.
If Burnham can however succeed in moving vast swathes of the civil service out of London, then I’m definitely in favour.
https://legacy.tendringdc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council/elections & voting/2026/Aug13/UKPGE - NOP SOP SOPN.pdf
If Sir Humphrey is dragged North with Hacker every week, or even better Sir Humphrey's start living and working up here, then things might begin to change.
When there’s a policy, we can debate it.
Should add internal trade barriers can be surprisingly large in some countries, eg between Canadian provinces.
It's high summer and the non political majority have not thought about Burnham at all yet. September to Christmas will be interesting.
however
if some bloke was swanning around offering such a gamble I'd assume the 50/50 chance is actually rigged in his favour in some way.
We are now in a social media age where worryingly many of our cross party elected politicians face daily threats both to them and their families and now require added security for their safety simply because of their political beliefs and sadly we have seen the tragic consequences of this far too often in the last few years. Prince Harry is not only the second son of the King, he also served two active tours of duty in the Middle East while he served in the military. Not only that, he has been a huge advocate of military veteran causes and created the Invictus Games foundation. But I have no doubt that the refusal of special security for Prince Harry and his family when visiting the UK is in no small part down to the media pressure that it would cause which is ironic considering the media tsunami that surrounds him and would border on hysteria if he ever attended a public event here with Meghan and their children today.
Just last week some journalist tried to defend the fact he and his family didn't require special protection when visiting the UK because he was able to sneak Meghan and his children into the UK for a private visit with his father and Camilla at Highgrove totally under the radar of the UK media and the public. But with the next Invictus Games being held in the UK Prince Harry and his wife should be able to feel safe to attend well publicised events in the lead up to and during the event with proper security and shame on our Government and all the cross party elected MPs at Westminster who cannot see or understand that considering sadly the risks they too now face in this day age for simple putting themselves out there in public so they are able to do their elected job.
Seriously, the silence of our elected politicians on this issue despite their own experiences in the face of media and public pressure despite the equally serious risks to Prince Harry and his family is deafening and shameful in light of what Prince Harry has done over the last decade to hightlight the plight of our veterans and others in different countries across the world and then has brought them together regularly with his sterling work with the Invictus Games Foundation..