It would be interesting to know how many jobs directly and indirectly depend upon having a group of elite athletes getting lottery funding (Some of my income is)....and how many spin-off companies have come about because of it.
This is putting the mask of choice on the face of cowardice.
Being inside the tent and pissing in it does no-one any favours. Get behind Corbyn, or split. Is the name of Labour worth more than the values of Labour?
Stop pussyfooting about!
Yes, a split party will be hammered. You're already bloody split.
I don't want the Conservatives to cruise seamlessly to victory because Labour MPs are so damned incompetent. We need a sane opposition.
Oafs.
FPTP ties their hands. Ask UKIP about how easy it is for smaller parties to win seats. I believe the current going rate is 1 MP for every 4 million votes. This seems like a sensible proposal to bide their time until Corbyn can be ousted after losing an election.
Tough. We've only just had a referendum on PR and it failed. Live with it.
No we didn't. AV is not PR. If only there was a thread we could do on the subject.
Of course it's the same thing - it's just shuffling up the votes of the losers to occasionally stop the real winner winning.
no it isn't, ukip=4 million votes 1 MP
SNP 1.5 million votes = 56 MP's and a majority on 37% share of the vote! Ofcourse you like it when your side is winning but imagine Milliband got a majority with 37%?
You would hate it.
Trudeau is set to introduce PR in Canada which would leave the UK and US as the only major western nations which still use FPTP at general elections (and of course the US has primaries unlike the UK)
Although France and Australia both use single-member constituency systems, which are far closer to FPTP than they are to PR.
Yes but France has a second ballot system and Australia AV which give greater scope to vote with your heart in the first vote and your head in the second and also ensures the winner has to get over 50% to win
Which have nothing to do with PR as both systems still require tactical voting of one form or another if a candidate fails to win 50%. What they do is work for centrist parties and against divisive ones.
Refreshing nevertheless that some countries have voting with actual 'posts' in the system and not just in the name.
This is putting the mask of choice on the face of cowardice.
Being inside the tent and pissing in it does no-one any favours. Get behind Corbyn, or split. Is the name of Labour worth more than the values of Labour?
Stop pussyfooting about!
Yes, a split party will be hammered. You're already bloody split.
I don't want the Conservatives to cruise seamlessly to victory because Labour MPs are so damned incompetent. We need a sane opposition.
Oafs.
FPTP ties their hands. Ask UKIP about how easy it is for smaller parties to win seats. I believe the current going rate is 1 MP for every 4 million votes. This seems like a sensible proposal to bide their time until Corbyn can be ousted after losing an election.
Tough. We've only just had a referendum on PR and it failed. Live with it.
No we didn't. AV is not PR. If only there was a thread we could do on the subject.
Of course it's the same thing - it's just shuffling up the votes of the losers to occasionally stop the real winner winning.
no it isn't, ukip=4 million votes 1 MP
SNP 1.5 million votes = 56 MP's and a majority on 37% share of the vote! Ofcourse you like it when your side is winning but imagine Milliband got a majority with 37%?
You would hate it.
Trudeau is set to introduce PR in Canada which would leave the UK and US as the only major western nations which still use FPTP at general elections (and of course the US has primaries unlike the UK)
Trudeau just loves to virtue signal w
Nonetheless he has the votes to get it through. PR top up, like in Germany, or even AV as in Australia preserve the local representative element without being too complicated
The recent Australian election took 2 weeks to count. That is not a good system.
The 2000 presidential election took 2 months to count under FPTP
The counting didn't take that long - the failure of certain systems and court cases are what delayed that.
It showed that FPTP can produce just as indecisive election results as any other system
This is putting the mask of choice on the face of cowardice.
Being inside the tent and pissing in it does no-one any favours. Get behind Corbyn, or split. Is the name of Labour worth more than the values of Labour?
Stop pussyfooting about!
Yes, a split party will be hammered. You're already bloody split.
I don't want the Conservatives to cruise seamlessly to victory because Labour MPs are so damned incompetent. We need a sane opposition.
Oafs.
FPTP ties their hands. Ask UKIP about how easy it is for smaller parties to win seats. I believe the current going rate is 1 MP for every 4 million votes. This seems like a sensible proposal to bide their time until Corbyn can be ousted after losing an election.
Tough. We've only just had a referendum on PR and it failed. Live with it.
No we didn't. AV is not PR. If only there was a thread we could do on the subject.
Of course it's the same thing - it's just shuffling up the votes of the losers to occasionally stop the real winner winning.
no it isn't, ukip=4 million votes 1 MP
SNP 1.5 million votes = 56 MP's and a majority on 37% share of the vote! Ofcourse you like it when your side is winning but imagine Milliband got a majority with 37%?
You would hate it.
Trudeau is set to introduce PR in Canada which would leave the UK and US as the only major western nations which still use FPTP at general elections (and of course the US has primaries unlike the UK)
Although France and Australia both use single-member constituency systems, which are far closer to FPTP than they are to PR.
Yes but France has a second ballot system and Australia AV which give greater scope to vote with your heart in the first vote and your head in the second and also ensures the winner has to get over 50% to win
Which have nothing to do with PR as both systems still require tactical voting of one form or another if a candidate fails to win 50%. What they do is work for centrist parties and against divisive ones.
Yes but it ensures whoever is elected has a mandate from more than half the voters
No, it doesn't. We've been through this a zillion times.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Except it isn't a valid question, as the "public funding" the athletes get isn't just for the Olympics. There are athletes who didn't medal but have won medals in world championships etc etc etc.
That is before it isn't public money and also they aren't considering what value does having Olympic medalist have for various sports, for participation in sport etc etc etc e.g. Without the funding Team GB cyclists to be based in Manchester, what would happen to the velodrome there? How many people's jobs exist because of elite athletes?
Many more jobs could be funded with £6M a medal, it is a scam for elite tossers as ever.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
I believe there is direct government spending at the elite sport end though it is dwarfed by the lottery based funding.
Its money well spent because there is such a thing as the happiness of the country and for the sums involved in direct funding, its more than got a return. Lots of people talk about it, they are happy about it, gives them a buzz.
Nothing in this Olympics has any association whatsoever with the UK's choice to leave the EU. It indicates nothing about our future. A typical case of too much politics sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.
Lets just accept that we have become a strong Olympic sporting nation, our best supported by a good support system and well funded. There is nothing new in this in sport. We also beat a long list of other major sporting nations and that is top sh*t.
On topic. This is a perfectly sensible policy by the bulk of the PLP. Said it before, getting rid of Corbyn is attrition and its just got to be fought and fought. Could take months, could take years, but if him and his brownshirts are that bad, then its worth fighting it out.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Well, quite, but there is some non-lottery funding as well.
Also interesting is despite the fact that the UK Sport funding formula is brutal, and based explicitly on demonstrating success in the most ruthless competitive arena ever invented, some people are using is as an example of "the Government picking winners"
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
I doubt the operation of a lottery is party specific - there's lots of guilt to go around on that one. I suspect you're letting your bias show....
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
That's arguable and depends on the motivations and risks of the individual. If they are happy to pay a 50% premium on their return for the (very outside) chance to become a millionaire tomorrow, then it's a rational transaction.
And on occasion - when the rollover has grown large enough - the maths are actually in your favour.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
No, it's a tax on hope.
Yes, in the long run, you only get half your money back. But the long run is several thousand lifetimes.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
This seems like a sensible proposal to bide their time until Corbyn can be ousted after losing an election.
What makes you think losing an election is a mechanism for ousting Corbyn?
Winning elections is not part of the Corbynista plan.
The PLP are counting on sufficient members coming to their senses and tiring of Corbyn's losing mentality. I think there are encouraging signs that this has already begun to happen. However, a sizeable portion of members don't really understand how elections are won and genuinely believe Corbyn has a chance. Once we are roundly defeated the hope is that the Corbyn Magic will fade.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
This seems like a sensible proposal to bide their time until Corbyn can be ousted after losing an election.
What makes you think losing an election is a mechanism for ousting Corbyn?
Winning elections is not part of the Corbynista plan.
I don't see how losing will get rid of Corbyn, unless the membership changes heart. I suppose a 1931-style decimation might change a few minds, but it seem more likely they will hug each other and blame the right-wing media, who didn't give the anointed one a fair hearing etc etc.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
So that's about £1.30 per person per year across the country. Big deal. I'm happy to pay that.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:
China USA USSR/CIS/Russia E Germany Romania* GB
* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.
And how many of those were state sponsored drug cheats?
Indeed. Or for that matter, non-state sponsored drugs cheats.
While some are more guilty than others there are few countries without the odd drug cheat, particularly those with a winning mentality that leads to money.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
Correct and it was sold as a tax for charity. Tories just cannot help stealing it and diverting it to their pet projects. Most people will play at some point.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
So that's about £1.30 per person per year across the country. Big deal. I'm happy to pay that.
what a surprise a Tory is happy that charity funds are diverted to Tory projects, I am amazed.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
Correct and it was sold as a tax for charity. Tories just cannot help stealing it and diverting it to their pet projects. Most people will play at some point.
40% goes to charity, 20% the arts, 20% heritage, 20% sport, so a plurality does go to charity
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
The charitable (quite widely defined) figure is 10% of revenue. The sports figure is 5%.
Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:
China USA USSR/CIS/Russia E Germany Romania* GB
* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.
And how many of those were state sponsored drug cheats?
Indeed. Or for that matter, non-state sponsored drugs cheats.
While some are more guilty than others there are few countries without the odd drug cheat, particularly those with a winning mentality that leads to money.
I think the old approach by UK in that if you got done for drugs you would never be selected for the Olympics, your funding would be withdrawn and you would have to pay back the money probably had some impact on individuals deciding if they wanted to dice with the secret sauce.
Even when Chambers won his case to go to the Olympics and forced a policy change, UK athletics still basically bust him to making him pay all the money back...resulting in having to run and run and run just to pay the bills and UK athletics gave him zero support.
In comparison, US have long been comfortable with athletes who have drugs banned coming back to compete with their full backing.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
Pedant , OK , charity and good causes
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit...If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit. Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....
Let's assume for the moment that you are in the rational phases of your personality and can be debated with. GBP's collapse post-Crunch was steeper but did not go as low as the post-Brexit crunch, nor did it last as long.. To gauge the effects of this it may also be productive to look at the 1980's GBP/USD drop (which also did not last long), the 1960's devaluation, or the 1970's oil price spike.
You also (inadvertently) trigger one of my perpetual bugbears: people are *very* bad at assessing risk. Small problems over long periods are as important as brief big problems. Nobody is predicting a huge*1 spoke in inflation, but smaller increases over decades are equally bad. After the 70's oil spike, it took the UK Government twenty years to bring it back down. Once it gets into the system, inflation is very difficult to get out
Humans are, indeed, hopeless at assessing some risks. And in normal life, small incremental and persistent risk can do more damage than big temporary spikes. But certain big risks are simply qualitatively different than smaller risks. A short sharp death is different from a long chronic disease.
We were promised Armageddon. It did not happen. Sure, there are still other smaller risks, and they might (stress might) add up to something bit. But they are qualitatively different than Armageddon.
Humans are though the best risk assessing thing that we know of. The least good risk assessing things that we know of are also human of course - they're the rating agency employees.
Those rating agency employees that were good at assessing risk were hired by the vanks for more money...
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
Nonsense - it's reflected in the price. That's like the old saw that the seller pays fees on a house sale. The buyer pays it as part of the price.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
I doubt the operation of a lottery is party specific - there's lots of guilt to go around on that one. I suspect you're letting your bias show....
The Tories hav ebeen in power for some time, and are a rapacious bunch of no users, it is fact not bias.
Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit...If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit. Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....
Let's assume for the moment that you are in the rational phases of your personality and can be debated with. GBP's collapse post-Crunch was steeper but did not go as low as the post-Brexit crunch, nor did it last as long.. To gauge the effects of this it may also be productive to look at the 1980's GBP/USD drop (which also did not last long), the 1960's devaluation, or the 1970's oil price spike.
You also (inadvertently) trigger one of my perpetual bugbears: people are *very* bad at assessing risk. Small problems over long periods are as important as brief big problems. Nobody is predicting a huge*1 spoke in inflation, but smaller increases over decades are equally bad. After the 70's oil spike, it took the UK Government twenty years to bring it back down. Once it gets into the system, inflation is very difficult to get out
Humans are, indeed, hopeless at assessing some risks. And in normal life, small incremental and persistent risk can do more damage than big temporary spikes. But certain big risks are simply qualitatively different than smaller risks. A short sharp death is different from a long chronic disease.
We were promised Armageddon. It did not happen. Sure, there are still other smaller risks, and they might (stress might) add up to something bit. But they are qualitatively different than Armageddon.
Humans are though the best risk assessing thing that we know of. The least good risk assessing things that we know of are also human of course - they're the rating agency employees.
Those rating agency employees that were good at assessing risk were hired by the vanks for more money...
vanks ?
Nice one. Is that a combination of vampire and bank?
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
As they themselves make clear on their website page "where your money goes" !
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
So that's about £1.30 per person per year across the country. Big deal. I'm happy to pay that.
Quite. 'Bread and Circuses' as a spending policy is a bit simplistic, but while not to everyone's tastes entertainment spectacles like this are useful in so many ways. Not least distracting us from our depressingly bitter politics.
Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit...If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit. Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....
Let's assume for the moment that you are in the rational phases of your personality and can be debated with. GBP's collapse post-Crunch was steeper but did not go as low as the post-Brexit crunch, nor did it last as long.. To gauge the effects of this it may also be productive to look at the 1980's GBP/USD drop (which also did not last long), the 1960's devaluation, or the 1970's oil price spike.
You also (inadvertently) trigger one of my perpetual bugbears: people are *very* bad at assessing risk. Small problems over long periods are as important as brief big problems. Nobody is predicting a huge*1 spoke in inflation, but smaller increases over decades are equally bad. After the 70's oil spike, it took the UK Government twenty years to bring it back down. Once it gets into the system, inflation is very difficult to get out
Humans are, indeed, hopeless at assessing some risks. And in normal life, small incremental and persistent risk can do more damage than big temporary spikes. But certain big risks are simply qualitatively different than smaller risks. A short sharp death is different from a long chronic disease.
We were promised Armageddon. It did not happen. Sure, there are still other smaller risks, and they might (stress might) add up to something bit. But they are qualitatively different than Armageddon.
Humans are though the best risk assessing thing that we know of. The least good risk assessing things that we know of are also human of course - they're the rating agency employees.
Those rating agency employees that were good at assessing risk were hired by the vanks for more money...
vanks ?
Nice one. Is that a combination of vampire and bank?
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
Pedant , OK , charity and good causes
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
How would the sports be funded in an independent Scotland? A similar model, or through direct taxation, or not at all?
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
Nonsense - it's reflected in the price. That's like the old saw that the seller pays fees on a house sale. The buyer pays it as part of the price.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
Pedant , OK , charity and good causes
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
How would the sports be funded in an independent Scotland? A similar model, or through direct taxation, or not at all?
I believe there is direct government spending at the elite sport end though it is dwarfed by the lottery based funding.
Its money well spent because there is such a thing as the happiness of the country and for the sums involved in direct funding, its more than got a return. Lots of people talk about it, they are happy about it, gives them a buzz.
Nothing in this Olympics has any association whatsoever with the UK's choice to leave the EU. It indicates nothing about our future. A typical case of too much politics sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.
Lets just accept that we have become a strong Olympic sporting nation, our best supported by a good support system and well funded. There is nothing new in this in sport. We also beat a long list of other major sporting nations and that is top sh*t.
On topic. This is a perfectly sensible policy by the bulk of the PLP. Said it before, getting rid of Corbyn is attrition and its just got to be fought and fought. Could take months, could take years, but if him and his brownshirts are that bad, then its worth fighting it out.
But it's not just happiness is it? There is the role model element. To be a medalist, you need to achieve excellence. Showing that excellence can be achieved, albeit in sport, educates a very wide public on the skill sets needed to excel and demonstrates that people from diverse backgrounds can apply these skill sets to the same end result. Those skill sets are transferrable to pretty much every field of human endeavour.
How much is it worth the country simply to believe we can win and that it is worth the application and the effort? Or indeed that the application and the effort can be their own reward? That has to be worth billions to the economy.
If I want to give 28p to charity, I give 28p to charity rather than spending £1 on a lottery ticket. However I partake in the office syndicate not because I hope or expect to win but out of fear of everyone else winning and buggering off to the Bahamas.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.
It is revenue received from private gambling which does not go to the public sector
If I want to give 28p to charity, I give 28p to charity rather than spending £1 on a lottery ticket. However I partake in the office syndicate not because I hope or expect to win but out of fear of everyone else winning and buggering off to the Bahamas.
I've taken a break from news and politics because post-Brexit I was on overload, plus I'm back coaching rugby (the wife is happy!).
But just to say the Labour coup has been a God-awful cock-up. Terribly poor timing. Suicidal underestimation of the Corbyn-team resolve. A gross over-estimation of any potential support for an alternative candidate among the membership. And a shockingly ill-conceived strategy that culminated in an alternative candidate that even the Blairites aren't fussed about (Smith is a bit of a bland non-entity, isn't he?)...
And the net consequence? A decision by the Corbyn antis in the parliamentary party to form a new grouping of sulkers until the next election.
They've seriously buggered this up.
Who said Tom Watson is a master of mafioso dark arts? The Tories must be loving it. First Watson got rid of Blair and now he's strengthened Corbyn. Doh doh doh!
For me, the best thing Labour can do/hope for is to see things out with Corbyn till the next GE, hope that the post-Brexit governing proves tough for May, with plenty of unpopular decisions, limit the losses in the marginals at the GE, replace Corbyn with Hillary Benn, then start afresh.
I certainly don't think the medium term outlook is bad for Labour. Politics is far more fickle and changeable these days than it's ever been. With a new, reassuring and sensible leader at the helm they can win in 2025. I don't even think their next leader has to be a centrist to win, just somebody who can bring forward the social justice policies without the baggage, disregard and incompetence of the Corbyn regime.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
Pedant , OK , charity and good causes
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
How would the sports be funded in an independent Scotland? A similar model, or through direct taxation, or not at all?
Surely their priority should be getting some of the Highland games sports accepted into the olympics? Isn't there at least one new sport every time around?
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
It doesn't. The national lottery is established by law but run by a private consortium. The allocation of funds (ie x% to prizes, y% to taxes, z% goes to good causes of which part is guaranteed to sport, part to various regions etc) is also mandated. About the distribution to individual organisatiobs within those allocations is handled by independent charities - certainly quangos but not public spending per se.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
Pedant , OK , charity and good causes
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
Poncy Tory athletes like Andy Murray, Mo Farrah and Adam Peaty?
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
Correct and it was sold as a tax for charity.
No, it wasn't. Charitable funding has always only been one of the "good causes", which is why they are "good causes" and not "charity".
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
If I were you I'd stop this particular avenue of discussion. You've already conceded the obvious - if the government spends the money then its government spending.
Time to stop digging. Otherwise you look like the Obama administration - denying until they're blue in the face that the $400 million in cash paid for the released hostages was a ransom, even after conceding that the payment was made as soon as the hostages were released and there was a 'connection' between the two events.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
It doesn't. The national lottery is established by law but run by a private consortium. The allocation of funds (ie x% to prizes, y% to taxes, z% goes to good causes of which part is guaranteed to sport, part to various regions etc) is also mandated. About the distribution to individual organisatiobs within those allocations is handled by independent charities - certainly quangos but not public spending per se.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
So that's about £1.30 per person per year across the country. Big deal. I'm happy to pay that.
Quite. 'Bread and Circuses' as a spending policy is a bit simplistic, but while not to everyone's tastes entertainment spectacles like this are useful in so many ways. Not least distracting us from our depressingly bitter politics.
£1.30 to add to the gaiety of the nation for a few weeks. worth it.
Following on from that example, how about we all chip in to the AV thread fund....
I'd suspect the raving about Tories and the Lottery were parody given the intensity of it for what is such a minor thing, but I'd guess not, which makes it hilarious, as all such overreactions are.
All those complaining about lottery funds used for Team GB success....Millennium Dome...now that was good value for money from the lottery...for AEG that it.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects
It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.
Pedant , OK , charity and good causes
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
Making the country feel good is certainly a good cause.
Pissing off professional miseryguts like Hitchens and amateur imitators like you is just an added bonus.
I've taken a break from news and politics because post-Brexit I was on overload, plus I'm back coaching rugby (the wife is happy!).
But just to say the Labour coup has been a God-awful cock-up. Terribly poor timing. Suicidal underestimation of the Corbyn-team resolve. A gross over-estimation of any potential support for an alternative candidate among the membership. And a shockingly ill-conceived strategy that culminated in an alternative candidate that even the Blairites aren't fussed about (Smith is a bit of a bland non-entity, isn't he?)...
And the net consequence? A decision by the Corbyn antis in the parliamentary party to form a new grouping of sulkers until the next election.
They've seriously buggered this up.
Who said Tom Watson is a master of mafioso dark arts? The Tories must be loving it. First Watson got rid of Blair and now he's strengthened Corbyn. Doh doh doh!
For me, the best thing Labour can do/hope for is to see things out with Corbyn till the next GE, hope that the post-Brexit governing proves tough for May, with plenty of unpopular decisions, limit the losses in the marginals at the GE, replace Corbyn with Hillary Benn, then start afresh.
I certainly don't think the medium term outlook is bad for Labour. Politics is far more fickle and changeable these days than it's ever been. With a new, reassuring and sensible leader at the helm they can win in 2025. I don't even think their next leader has to be a centrist to win, just somebody who can bring forward the social justice policies without the baggage, disregard and incompetence of the Corbyn regime.
The irony (tragedy if you prefer) is that they claimed to have been forced to act because of incompetence and poor leadership....
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!
Newsagents do
Not sure what you mean by that? We're talking about the lottery.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
If I were you I'd stop this particular avenue of discussion. You've already conceded the obvious - if the government spends the money then its government spending.
Time to stop digging. Otherwise you look like the Obama administration - denying until they're blue in the face that the $400 million in cash paid for the released hostages was a ransom, even after conceding that the payment was made as soon as the hostages were released and there was a 'connection' between the two events.
As Charles has pointed out the government does not even run the lottery or directly spend the money, distribution of the money is by independent charities and the lottery is run by a private consortium, Camelot.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
Just teasing him on his love for the inferior AV system.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!
Newsagents do
Not sure what you mean by that? We're talking about the lottery.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.
Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
That's arguable and depends on the motivations and risks of the individual. If they are happy to pay a 50% premium on their return for the (very outside) chance to become a millionaire tomorrow, then it's a rational transaction.
And on occasion - when the rollover has grown large enough - the maths are actually in your favour.
IIRC Richie Rich at Barcap used to buy £150 worth of tickets whenever the rollover hit £70m as that maximised the risk-adjusted return
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!
Newsagents do
Not sure what you mean by that? We're talking about the lottery.
Yes and most lottery machines are in newsagents
We weren't talking about newsagents - we were talking about the Lottery. Presumably if the Lottery had kiosks at Heathrow using your logic we could talk of airline revenue streams.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.
The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds
The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales
Paid by the licence holder not the buyer
That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...
Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers
"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!
Newsagents do
Not sure what you mean by that? We're talking about the lottery.
Yes and most lottery machines are in newsagents
OK, but that doesn't change the fact that money from ticket sales goes to the government as a duty, which you were disputing by claiming the license holder pays for it somehow without passing the cost on to the consumer.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.
Thanks. I would say that I don't understand how people can get so het up about FPTP vs. AV, but when I see claims that AV is a form of PR the psephologist in me does get very cross.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.
I fear the thread has been so hyped up that it can no longer be published...
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.
It is revenue received from private gambling which does not go to the public sector
The government could have established the lottery itself and run it through a government department, or a nationalised industry, deciding itself how to spend the net proceeds. In such circumstances (which I bet exist elsewhere) the money would be coming in and going out exactly the same but it would clearly be public spending.
So the question is whether the nature of the spending really changes because it is delivered by an outsourced route. The broad allocation of funds is set by government, nevertheless, and, whilst individual decisions are taken by the lottery organisation, I would bet that there are plenty of levers the government can pull to make sure the lottery money is spent in its preferred directions; indeed the lottery people themselves will be keen to keep the government happy as they award the franchise.
So it is really significantly different? To an accountant, maybe, but not to the person in the street.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.
Thanks. I would say that I don't understand how people can get so het up about FPTP vs. AV,
Ah, well, in that case let me take you through 58 irrefutable reasons FPTP is a system adored by fools and AV is the choice of the intelligent and handsome.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.
It is revenue received from private gambling which does not go to the public sector
The government could have established the lottery itself and run it through a government department, or a nationalised industry, deciding itself how to spend the net proceeds. In such circumstances (which I bet exist elsewhere) the money would be coming in and going out exactly the same but it would clearly be public spending.
So the question is whether the nature of the spending really changes because it is delivered by an outsourced route. The broad allocation of funds is set by government, nevertheless, and, whilst individual decisions are taken by the lottery organisation, I would bet that there are plenty of levers the government can pull to make sure the lottery money is spent in its preferred directions; indeed the lottery people themselves will be keen to keep the government happy as they award the franchise.
So it is really significantly different? To an accountant, maybe, but not to the person in the street.
I seemed to remember Labour government got in some hot water for adjusting the rules on where the money could and was being spent.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
The latter. Pigs will fly the day before Mr Eagles publishes his Magnum Opus on the Alternative Vote.
Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?
I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.
I fear the thread has been so hyped up that it can no longer be published...
Right, so there was a specific thread or threads. If I've got a long afternoon I'll go to the April/May 2011 archive and enjoy.
TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.
This is an interesting stat
@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016
The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines
There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"
Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"
Lottery spending is not public spending as such
If the government spends the money it's public spending.
The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax
It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.
Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments
The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.
It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector
Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.
He may agree with you - but he's wrong
If the government spends it then it's public spending. If it doesn't then it probably isn't.
I haven't been looking at PB, so probably off target, but a Southampton University lecturer produced a plan for the number choice to maximise return on the lottery. Could adapt it to horse racing I expect... have to look at it sometime.
Comments
Its money well spent because there is such a thing as the happiness of the country and for the sums involved in direct funding, its more than got a return. Lots of people talk about it, they are happy about it, gives them a buzz.
Nothing in this Olympics has any association whatsoever with the UK's choice to leave the EU. It indicates nothing about our future. A typical case of too much politics sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.
Lets just accept that we have become a strong Olympic sporting nation, our best supported by a good support system and well funded. There is nothing new in this in sport.
We also beat a long list of other major sporting nations and that is top sh*t.
On topic. This is a perfectly sensible policy by the bulk of the PLP. Said it before, getting rid of Corbyn is attrition and its just got to be fought and fought. Could take months, could take years, but if him and his brownshirts are that bad, then its worth fighting it out.
It's a tax. A stupidity tax.
Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes
And on occasion - when the rollover has grown large enough - the maths are actually in your favour.
Yes, in the long run, you only get half your money back. But the long run is several thousand lifetimes.
However, a sizeable portion of members don't really understand how elections are won and genuinely believe Corbyn has a chance.
Once we are roundly defeated the hope is that the Corbyn Magic will fade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31302446
Fourteenth! with only 2.7 million people.
2.7 million people + Bolt.
Even when Chambers won his case to go to the Olympics and forced a policy change, UK athletics still basically bust him to making him pay all the money back...resulting in having to run and run and run just to pay the bills and UK athletics gave him zero support.
In comparison, US have long been comfortable with athletes who have drugs banned coming back to compete with their full backing.
It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes
I may be naive, but I think some of the Labour MPs are principled. H. Benn is one such I reckon.
vanks ?
Nice one. Is that a combination of vampire and bank?
How much is it worth the country simply to believe we can win and that it is worth the application and the effort? Or indeed that the application and the effort can be their own reward? That has to be worth billions to the economy.
But just to say the Labour coup has been a God-awful cock-up. Terribly poor timing. Suicidal underestimation of the Corbyn-team resolve. A gross over-estimation of any potential support for an alternative candidate among the membership. And a shockingly ill-conceived strategy that culminated in an alternative candidate that even the Blairites aren't fussed about (Smith is a bit of a bland non-entity, isn't he?)...
And the net consequence? A decision by the Corbyn antis in the parliamentary party to form a new grouping of sulkers until the next election.
They've seriously buggered this up.
Who said Tom Watson is a master of mafioso dark arts? The Tories must be loving it. First Watson got rid of Blair and now he's strengthened Corbyn. Doh doh doh!
For me, the best thing Labour can do/hope for is to see things out with Corbyn till the next GE, hope that the post-Brexit governing proves tough for May, with plenty of unpopular decisions, limit the losses in the marginals at the GE, replace Corbyn with Hillary Benn, then start afresh.
I certainly don't think the medium term outlook is bad for Labour. Politics is far more fickle and changeable these days than it's ever been. With a new, reassuring and sensible leader at the helm they can win in 2025. I don't even think their next leader has to be a centrist to win, just somebody who can bring forward the social justice policies without the baggage, disregard and incompetence of the Corbyn regime.
Time to stop digging. Otherwise you look like the Obama administration - denying until they're blue in the face that the $400 million in cash paid for the released hostages was a ransom, even after conceding that the payment was made as soon as the hostages were released and there was a 'connection' between the two events.
.@JudgeJeanine: What Have Democrats Done for Minorities? https://t.co/SbS7Bt3XiA https://t.co/tM2VXCVuGC
Very strong stuff from her to go with Sheriff Clarke
Fascinating to watch how this plays out.
Following on from that example, how about we all chip in to the AV thread fund....
Pissing off professional miseryguts like Hitchens and amateur imitators like you is just an added bonus.
Would you buy this lemon?
Team GB have done wonderfully well.
So the question is whether the nature of the spending really changes because it is delivered by an outsourced route. The broad allocation of funds is set by government, nevertheless, and, whilst individual decisions are taken by the lottery organisation, I would bet that there are plenty of levers the government can pull to make sure the lottery money is spent in its preferred directions; indeed the lottery people themselves will be keen to keep the government happy as they award the franchise.
So it is really significantly different? To an accountant, maybe, but not to the person in the street.
Point the first....
How nice to hear about British Leyland car sales again