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.
The balls aren't random? What's that independent adjudicator been doing all these years??
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.
Airlines do not directly run the shops at Heathrow
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.
While an AV thread is always popular, it is as nothing to a thread discussing the pros and cons of various forms of PR...
But TSE knows that would overdose us and we have to be content with AV vs FPTP.
FPTP does at least lend itself to political gambling as there is a clear winner to payout on.
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.
Airlines do not directly run the shops at Heathrow
Yes, and neither do newsagents run the national 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
"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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
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.
Does it involve looking at the patterns people use to decide numbers, then doing the exact opposite?
For example humans choosing numbers will gravitate to choosing numbers based on dates, so numbers over 31 are much less likely to be chosen.
To maximise your winnings you want the numbers that no-one else chooses, so the pot is split between fewer winners. It was said that 100k people a week choose 1,2,3,4,5,6 for example, so if that combination ever comes up don't ring you boss and call him a ****!
Would make a good statistics or Sociology Masters' paper.
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.
The balls aren't random? What's that independent adjudicator been doing all these years??
The strategy doesn't affect the chance of winning, but it maximises the expected return by choosing unpopular numbers so as to reduce the chance of sharing the prize. (BBC article.)
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.
The government will look at the broad direction of spending but everyday decisions over its allocation are made by independent charities
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.
I've given you two Parvum Opuses this year on AV.
Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left think it is
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.
It doesn't. My team does a lot of work introducing the leadership teams at various Lottery bodies to parts of the government to try and encourage the government to match their spending!
RobD - I think it is ok, I remember the stir in academic circles when it came out, nobody had expected anything useful to come out of a department of mathematics.
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.
Airlines do not directly run the shops at Heathrow
Yes, and neither do newsagents run the national lottery.
Newsagents host the machines for the lottery, even if lottery kiosks were available at Heathrow it would be the kiosks which hosted the machines not the airlines
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?
In the run up to the AV referendum, there were innumerable threads on various aspects of AV, and the same issues for and against the various options, vs FPTP and vs each other, were debated in the postings ad nauseum. Everyone was truly fed up with the whole issue and the repetitiveness of the discussion.
Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.
Trump leads Clinton by 2% in latest poll, LA Times-USC, 14-20 August.
What was the question..?
"We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses." (Source.)
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
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?
In the run up to the AV referendum, there were innumerable threads on various aspects of AV, and the same issues for and against the various options, vs FPTP and vs each other, were debated in the postings ad nauseum. Everyone was truly fed up with the whole issue and the repetitiveness of the discussion. Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.
There was also the strong opinion said by the pro-AV people that opposing AV was a massive strategic error by the Conservatives and it was going to lead to an End of Days, Chaos and no Conservative Prime Minister ever again. At least one of these statements was an exaggeration but the sentiment was true.
Newsagents host the machines for the lottery, even if lottery kiosks were available at Heathrow it would be the kiosks which hosted the machines not the airlines
Yes, so I'm not sure how Camelot pay the duty without passing it on to the consumer.
RobD - I think it is ok, I remember the stir in academic circles when it came out, nobody had expected anything useful to come out of a department of mathematics.
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
Trump leads Clinton by 2% in latest poll, LA Times-USC, 14-20 August.
What was the question..?
It's a tracking poll.
"We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses"
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
In theory any number you choose is equally likely to come up, so why not choose one that's more likely to win you a bigger prize?
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.
I've given you two Parvum Opuses this year on AV.
Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left think it is
Newsagents host the machines for the lottery, even if lottery kiosks were available at Heathrow it would be the kiosks which hosted the machines not the airlines
IIRC lottery kiosks (like insurance booths) are banned at airports becuase they might impact passenger risk profiles...
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
Again, that's splitting hairs.
In fact, Lottery duty is listed in Camelot's accounts. So it would seem they pay it, not the retailers.
Newsagents host the machines for the lottery, even if lottery kiosks were available at Heathrow it would be the kiosks which hosted the machines not the airlines
Yes, so I'm not sure how Camelot pay the duty without passing it on to the consumer.
It is newsagents, license holders, who pay the duty
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
In theory any number you choose is equally likely to come up, so why not choose one that's more likely to win you a bigger prize?
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
I play the Lottery for harmless fun. Probably get a Lucky Dip ticket win or few pounds about 10-20% of the time. I consider it all charitable donations with a teeny weeny chance of enormous wealth.
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
I've taken a half-hour off and I'm watching "Top Gear: The Bolivia Special" on Dave. May has just described the Suzuki he's driving as "plucky: like Finland during the War".
I haven't got the heart to tell him, I really haven't...
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
But as a gambler you should be looking to maximise your risk adjusted return for a given level of capital (which this does) vs just "winning"
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?
In the run up to the AV referendum, there were innumerable threads on various aspects of AV, and the same issues for and against the various options, vs FPTP and vs each other, were debated in the postings ad nauseum. Everyone was truly fed up with the whole issue and the repetitiveness of the discussion. Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.
There was also the strong opinion said by the pro-AV people that opposing AV was a massive strategic error by the Conservatives and it was going to lead to an End of Days, Chaos and no Conservative Prime Minister ever again. At least one of these statements was an exaggeration but the sentiment was true.
Yes. How quickly we forget how unfairly the electoral system was skewed for Labour. And how quickly that has changed.
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.
I've given you two Parvum Opuses this year on AV.
Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left think it is
Splitting hairs, aka pedantry, is a fine tradition of PB. See the excellent post by JohnO on Latin grammar upthread for a recent example. To complain about pedantry or hair splitting on this site is like complaining that the sun rises in the East.
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
But as a gambler you should be looking to maximise your risk adjusted return for a given level of capital (which this does) vs just "winning"
Yeah, but when the odds are so long in the first place! And anyway I think I'd be happy enough with any big win
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
I suspect that the newsagents are agents not sellers so the sale is by Camelot when the ticket is recognised on their system. Hence Camelot pays the duty.
Re: @RobD at 18:33 Camelot not the newsagents is the licence holder
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports 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
How would the sports be funded in an independent Scotland? A similar model, or through direct taxation, or not at all?
Rob, I have no clue but personally would prefer it spent at grass roots rather athn a few elite tossers getting all the cash
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
I'm assuming Camelot is the licence holder and the newsagents are the agents, hence the duty appearing in the Camelot's accounts.
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?
I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
The newsagent pays the full price of the ticket to Camelot, who then split out the 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
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?
YES, I don't know Peaty but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Actually, I think the license holder refers to Camelot (*the* license holder, rather than *a*)
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
But as a gambler you should be looking to maximise your risk adjusted return for a given level of capital (which this does) vs just "winning"
Yeah, but when the odds are so long in the first place! And anyway I think I'd be happy enough with any big win
RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.
Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?
But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)
Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.
But as a gambler you should be looking to maximise your risk adjusted return for a given level of capital (which this does) vs just "winning"
Yeah, but when the odds are so long in the first place! And anyway I think I'd be happy enough with any big win
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?
In the run up to the AV referendum, there were innumerable threads on various aspects of AV, and the same issues for and against the various options, vs FPTP and vs each other, were debated in the postings ad nauseum. Everyone was truly fed up with the whole issue and the repetitiveness of the discussion. Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.
There was also the strong opinion said by the pro-AV people that opposing AV was a massive strategic error by the Conservatives and it was going to lead to an End of Days, Chaos and no Conservative Prime Minister ever again. At least one of these statements was an exaggeration but the sentiment was true.
Yes. How quickly we forget how unfairly the electoral system was skewed for Labour. And how quickly that has changed.
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?
I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure
From the explanatory notes:
"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?
I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure
From the explanatory notes:
"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."
That'd be Camelot.
Whether Camelot pays from the money given by the newsagent or the newsagent pays and it looks like the former, technically it is still not a duty levied directly on the buyer which was the main point
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?
I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure
From the explanatory notes:
"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."
That'd be Camelot.
Whether Camelot pays from the money given by the newsagent or the newsagent pays and it looks like the former, technically it is still not a duty levied directly on the buyer which was the main point
And Camelot's only source of income is ticket sales, so it is paid for by the consumer, not some other revenue stream.
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
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.
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.
Does it involve looking at the patterns people use to decide numbers, then doing the exact opposite?
For example humans choosing numbers will gravitate to choosing numbers based on dates, so numbers over 31 are much less likely to be chosen.
To maximise your winnings you want the numbers that no-one else chooses, so the pot is split between fewer winners. It was said that 100k people a week choose 1,2,3,4,5,6 for example, so if that combination ever comes up don't ring you boss and call him a ****!
Would make a good statistics or Sociology Masters' paper.
One way to apply it to horse-racing would be to look for kinds of names that horses have that may tend to make them undervalued in the betting market...and then to sell the information to a bookie
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.
The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue
You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.
The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product
Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?
'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?
I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure
From the explanatory notes:
"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."
That'd be Camelot.
Whether Camelot pays from the money given by the newsagent or the newsagent pays and it looks like the former, technically it is still not a duty levied directly on the buyer which was the main point
And Camelot's only source of income is ticket sales, so it is paid for by the consumer, not some other revenue stream.
Not directly, technically most of the duty could be paid by only the majority of revenue from a minority of tickets as long as it is paid, the revenue from a few tickets may not directly go to pay the duty at all
A rather silly problem to find themselves in, for all that G4S are an awful bloody company. Though is this at least one problem that cannot be blamed on Corbyn? As no matter the merits or not of attempting to boycott G4S and whose idea it was, it is just a party administration matter that has been unable to sort it out in a year.
Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)
She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit
She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion
Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.
Corbyn won the leadership by winning 60% of members' votes, so if Smith won by 51% to 49%, 82% of Corbyn's former voters would still have backed him but he would nonetheless lose. Corbyn is clear favourite but his victory is not a certainty
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....
They'll only get a good leader if they select a better class of candidate. None of the younger MPs I've heard seem that convincing or in command of their subject.
If we go back decades, Harold Wilson was one of several potential leaders. Due to the oversupply of good ones, only Callaghan got the top job and that was only because Wilson resigned when only 60 (younger than Callaghan). Barbara Castle, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins or Shirley Williams never did become leader.
I don't mind older leaders - look what a mess our youthful Chancellor made aged 39-45 - but will Benn himself want to be PM at age 72 (2025)?
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?
Rob, I have no clue but personally would prefer it spent at grass roots rather athn a few elite tossers getting all the cash
Single polls are always misleading, do people deliberately post outliers to help their betting position? Doesn't seem fair on those who they seek to mislead.
So in other words, the PLP have made complete and utter fools of themselves as expected and now they're looking for a way to back down without losing too much face.
Brilliant!
Afternoon GIN, going to be large amount of donkeys eating humble pie soon.
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good
Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)
She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit
She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion
Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.
Corbyn won the leadership by winning 60% of members' votes, so if Smith won by 51% to 49%, 82% of Corbyn's former voters would still have backed him but he would nonetheless lose. Corbyn is clear favourite but his victory is not a certainty
You can't however just add up all the non-Corbyn votes and hand them to Smith. There will be personal reasons why people supported various of the other candidates last time, and personal reasons why some won't prefer Smith this time. And there will be a lot of members who now see the issue as one of democracy and whether power to choose sits with members or MPs.
Single polls are always misleading, do people deliberately post outliers to help their betting position? Doesn't seem fair on those who they seek to mislead.
Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)
She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit
She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion
Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.
Clearly she's not a very good scientist given how poor her logical faculties seem.
It's an experiment. Humans pick their partners using stochastic processing. They form repeated partnerships and compile a list in their heads about who was good and who was bad. Once they feel ready for a longterm relationship they continue dating until they find one that was as good (or close to) the best one they previously discarded, then they select that one. This is why some married people have memories of a former sweetheart who they wish they'd gone with instead. If SeanT's squeeze isn't ready for longterm than she's basically calibrating.
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?
Rob, I have no clue but personally would prefer it spent at grass roots rather athn a few elite tossers getting all the cash
What about Tossing the Caber?
They have to pay their own way , no effete pampered millionaires there
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good
If they contribute a great deal to the country yes, as Mo clearly does
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good
I think the point is that your wish to live in the sun Is unlikely to be based on a desire to move to Somalia or the Ethiopian mountains...
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.
Does it involve looking at the patterns people use to decide numbers, then doing the exact opposite?
For example humans choosing numbers will gravitate to choosing numbers based on dates, so numbers over 31 are much less likely to be chosen.
To maximise your winnings you want the numbers that no-one else chooses, so the pot is split between fewer winners. It was said that 100k people a week choose 1,2,3,4,5,6 for example, so if that combination ever comes up don't ring you boss and call him a ****!
Would make a good statistics or Sociology Masters' paper.
One way to apply it to horse-racing would be to look for kinds of names that horses have that may tend to make them undervalued in the betting market...and then to sell the information to a bookie
Why would a bookie want to buy it? A bookie makes his money by shifting odds and laying-off depending on what bets are being placed. Who is or is not likely to win in not a matter of interest. Bookies that try to predict which horse, dog, or human is likely to win a certain contest tend to go broke very quickly. Only the money matters.
Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)
She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit
She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion
Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.
Corbyn won the leadership by winning 60% of members' votes, so if Smith won by 51% to 49%, 82% of Corbyn's former voters would still have backed him but he would nonetheless lose. Corbyn is clear favourite but his victory is not a certainty
You can't however just add up all the non-Corbyn votes and hand them to Smith. There will be personal reasons why people supported various of the other candidates last time, and personal reasons why some won't prefer Smith this time. And there will be a lot of members who now see the issue as one of democracy and whether power to choose sits with members or MPs.
Indeed, some Burnham, Cooper or Kendall voters may prefer Corbyn to Smith now their preferred candidate is not in the race and there may even be some Corbyn voters who see Smith as leftwing enough to vote for in a way that Burnham, Cooper or Kendall were not. However such voters will be a small minority. Clearly Corbyn is the strong favourite but it is not impossible Smith will win, he only needs to win just under 20% of Corbyn voters and win almost all the votes of those who voted for Burnham, Cooper and Kendall
There will be some members who will see it as an issue of democracy, there will be some who see it as an issue of the future survival of the Labour Party which is presently polling not far off Foot's 1983 record low
Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)
She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit
She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion
Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.
Clearly she's not a very good scientist given how poor her logical faculties seem.
It's an experiment. Humans pick their partners using stochastic processing. They form repeated partnerships and compile a list in their heads about who was good and who was bad. Once they feel ready for a longterm relationship they continue dating until they find one that was as good (or close to) the best one they previously discarded, then they select that one. This is why some married people have memories of a former sweetheart who they wish they'd gone with instead. If SeanT's squeeze isn't ready for longterm than she's basically calibrating.
So in other words, the PLP have made complete and utter fools of themselves as expected and now they're looking for a way to back down without losing too much face.
Brilliant!
Afternoon GIN, going to be large amount of donkeys eating humble pie soon.
Even Malc!
Certainly seems so.
GIN, just amazed at the Frothers on here, wetting their pants at us only having to spend £6M per medal to prove we are not a crap country full of poverty and foodbanks. Makes you feel good. Surely all those medallists will mean that our poor peopel will strive harder and become rich as well.
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good
I think the point is that your wish to live in the sun Is unlikely to be based on a desire to move to Somalia or the Ethiopian mountains...
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good
I think the point is that your wish to live in the sun Is unlikely to be based on a desire to move to Somalia or the Ethiopian mountains...
No the point is that wasting millions on some twat to run round a track whether he is a local or an immigrant is madness, £12M to get his two medals is a national disgrace when we hav epeople starving and sleeping in doorways.
Single polls are always misleading, do people deliberately post outliers to help their betting position? Doesn't seem fair on those who they seek to mislead.
Rather than seeking to mislead anyone or help my betting position (keep your hair on! ), I was just posting the surely postworthy fact that the latest national poll puts Trump in the lead. RCP is exactly where I got the info from.
It's true that LATimes-USC efforts have tended to yield results showing Trump doing better than in other polls. Then again, of all the national polls listed at RCP, theirs is the only one for which at least some of the data was collected during 18-20 August. And 18 August was the day that Trump issued his so-called "apology".
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?
YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK
Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started
Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.
He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury
Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good
If they contribute a great deal to the country yes, as Mo clearly does
More bollox, what exactly has he contributed. He does not live here , he runs under the flag and gets well paid for it. I await your list of his contributions.
Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)
She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit
She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion
Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.
Clearly she's not a very good scientist given how poor her logical faculties seem.
It's an experiment. Humans pick their partners using stochastic processing. They form repeated partnerships and compile a list in their heads about who was good and who was bad. Once they feel ready for a longterm relationship they continue dating until they find one that was as good (or close to) the best one they previously discarded, then they select that one. This is why some married people have memories of a former sweetheart who they wish they'd gone with instead. If SeanT's squeeze isn't ready for longterm than she's basically calibrating.
Though it is a very imperfect system as the high break up rate of such partnerships demonstrates. Matchmaking and arranged marriages may well be better, and indeed was common in Britain too until superseeded, though still strong in British Asian communities.
So in other words, the PLP have made complete and utter fools of themselves as expected and now they're looking for a way to back down without losing too much face.
Brilliant!
Afternoon GIN, going to be large amount of donkeys eating humble pie soon.
Even Malc!
Certainly seems so.
GIN, just amazed at the Frothers on here, wetting their pants at us only having to spend £6M per medal to prove we are not a crap country full of poverty and foodbanks. Makes you feel good. Surely all those medallists will mean that our poor peopel will strive harder and become rich as well.
Your insistence on referring to people not bothered by such a thing as frothers is absolutely ridiculous - you seem to be the only one frothing about it, others are simply disagreeing with you malc.
More generally, when people feel good and positive and confident about their country it helps economically and socially in many ways.
Comments
But TSE knows that would overdose us and we have to be content with AV vs FPTP.
FPTP does at least lend itself to political gambling as there is a clear winner to payout on.
For example humans choosing numbers will gravitate to choosing numbers based on dates, so numbers over 31 are much less likely to be chosen.
To maximise your winnings you want the numbers that no-one else chooses, so the pot is split between fewer winners. It was said that 100k people a week choose 1,2,3,4,5,6 for example, so if that combination ever comes up don't ring you boss and call him a ****!
Would make a good statistics or Sociology Masters' paper.
Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left think it is
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/24/electoral-reform-might-not-be-the-panacea-the-left-think-it-is/
and
The EURef might be more like the AV referendum and not the Indyref
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/17/the-euref-might-be-more-like-the-av-referendum-and-not-the-indyref/
2 Parvum opus = 1 Magnum opus
Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.
CBS/Yougov Ohio Clinton 46% Trump 40% Johnson 6% Stein 2%
https://www.scribd.com/document/321810660/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Ohio-August-21-2016#from_embed
CBS/Yougov Iowa Clinton 40% Trump 40% Johnson 7% Stein 2%
https://www.scribd.com/document/321810686/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-Iowa-August-21-2016#from_embed
"We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses"
http://www.camelotgroup.co.uk/assets/Uploads/CamelotFinancialStatement201415.pdf
Best win was £575.
I miss the football pools as were.
I haven't got the heart to tell him, I really haven't...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/21/lynsey-sharp-criticises-obvious-hypoadrogenous-women-having-bein/
Who is Paul Radmilovic? @TeamGB's forgotten Olympic legend https://t.co/ubkjrkt7gp #Rio2016 https://t.co/ygEh0KRQmf
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty
I ask all 255,000 people who follow me on Twitter to join the Labour Party and support Jeremy Corbyn https://t.co/aTGUFlqpns
Re: @RobD at 18:33 Camelot not the newsagents is the licence holder
http://tinyurl.com/hq7xx5m
"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."
That'd be Camelot.
Another day, another Labour comedy moment. https://t.co/59EbVQ6bJC
"What do you mean, the price has gone up?"
If we go back decades, Harold Wilson was one of several potential leaders. Due to the oversupply of good ones, only Callaghan got the top job and that was only because Wilson resigned when only 60 (younger than Callaghan). Barbara Castle, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins or Shirley Williams never did become leader.
I don't mind older leaders - look what a mess our youthful Chancellor made aged 39-45 - but will Benn himself want to be PM at age 72 (2025)?
Just how happy was your afternoon?
On second thoughts don't answer that...
Anyway, people can check recent polls here -
4 Way - Clinton 5.5% ahead http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
2 Way - Clinton 5.3% ahead
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Certainly seems so.
There will be some members who will see it as an issue of democracy, there will be some who see it as an issue of the future survival of the Labour Party which is presently polling not far off Foot's 1983 record low
It's true that LATimes-USC efforts have tended to yield results showing Trump doing better than in other polls. Then again, of all the national polls listed at RCP, theirs is the only one for which at least some of the data was collected during 18-20 August. And 18 August was the day that Trump issued his so-called "apology".
More generally, when people feel good and positive and confident about their country it helps economically and socially in many ways.