Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ex-strong favourite BoJo slips even further in the next CON le

1246

Comments

  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Jonathan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    The government are paying a going rate of £100M a vote. That's a big incentive.
    ...even that's untrue. There will be hundreds of votes on which the DUP will support the Govt. The left and Mathematics are strangers to one another.
    Oh.. so if the DUP support the govt 200 times then £5m per vote is a good rate?
    The election result produced only two plausible governments:

    (1) A Tory minority with explicit support from the DUP
    (2) A Tory minority without explicit support from the DUP.

    Buying a restoration of Stormont (as that's what the £1bn is actually buying) seems reasonable for the upgrade from option 2 to option 1...
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,925

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Enjoy it while it lasts....As Mrs May and Ms Sturgeon have found out, Mr Gravity will catch up with you sooner or later....
    You mean like Brexit
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Are people really wittering about a billion quid ?

    Its a trivial amount compared to the money thrown away so Cameron could play Lord Bountiful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

    And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.

    Planned Overseas Aid = Bad
    Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good

    What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
    It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.

    But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
    Another magic money tree follower ?!?

    Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
    So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.

    But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.

    Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
    Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
    Translation: you are annoyed the Tories are now securely in office.

    Go to bed.
    5 years is a long time. Corbyn might be too old to win by then, or any manner of other things may happen.

    The tories are in a pickle at the moment, but they're in power.

  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382

    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
    I agree with you as regards the Royals, CR, but we can't dispute it is special pleading. It should however mean that we are now likely to hear less of the sillier 'magic money tree' jibes that are used to demolish support for unpopular spending. Some may even feel compelled to resort to reason instead.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,939
    edited June 2017
    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries. That's what comes of having the muscle of being second largest economy in the world!
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
    Fairness doesn't come into it.

    Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
    It would also totally freeze up the housing market. No one would move, but just keep their house and then rent out another one whilst renting the house they owned.
    Nonsense. Most people just want the house they live in and aren't interested in renting out property. People only do that for income reasons or because of a temporary move.

    One minute you are concerned about people having enough money to move then they have multiple houses.

    It works no differently to the stamp duty except one is on buying and one on selling.

    CGT on property would have a downward pressure on prices to the extent of the CGT as a maximum, making houses a bit cheaper for first time buyers. 2nd time buyers onwards would find houses a little cheaper but will have paid the tax so generally a neutral position.

    However I agree with Sean - suicide to introduce and a negative impact on existing house owners and I don't know how you get over that off the top of my head.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries.

    Well they've got to find the shortfall from the UK's contributions somewhere
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382
    edited June 2017

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Are people really wittering about a billion quid ?

    Its a trivial amount compared to the money thrown away so Cameron could play Lord Bountiful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

    And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.

    Planned Overseas Aid = Bad
    Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good

    What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
    It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.

    But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
    Another magic money tree follower ?!?

    Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
    So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.

    But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.

    Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
    Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
    Translation: you are annoyed the Tories are now securely in office.

    Go to bed.
    5 years is a long time. Corbyn might be too old to win by then, or any manner of other things may happen.

    The tories are in a pickle at the moment, but they're in power.

    Lol! I love the imagery.

    We are used to the concept of 'in office but not in power' which you might say applies to the current mob, but your depiction is far more appropriate - in power but in a pickle!
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715
    kjh said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
    Fairness doesn't come into it.

    Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
    It would also totally freeze up the housing market. No one would move, but just keep their house and then rent out another one whilst renting the house they owned.
    Nonsense. Most people just want the house they live in and aren't interested in renting out property. People only do that for income reasons or because of a temporary move.

    One minute you are concerned about people having enough money to move then they have multiple houses.

    It works no differently to the stamp duty except one is on buying and one on selling.

    CGT on property would have a downward pressure on prices to the extent of the CGT as a maximum, making houses a bit cheaper for first time buyers. 2nd time buyers onwards would find houses a little cheaper but will have paid the tax so generally a neutral position.

    However I agree with Sean - suicide to introduce and a negative impact on existing house owners and I don't know how you get over that off the top of my head.
    Huge apologies Slackbladder. My manipulation of the quotes is screwed up. That is my reply to you and not your comments.

    I have rather put words into your mouth - SORRY!
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713
    edited June 2017
    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713

    thats fine... somethings gone wrong somewhere!
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715
    I don't know what I am doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,960
    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries. That's what comes of having the muscle of being second largest economy in the world!

    It is also what comes from being a plain bloody stupid bureaucracy.

    If you don't like google, use somewhere else. It is not rocket science.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855
    Blue_rog said:

    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries.

    Well they've got to find the shortfall from the UK's contributions somewhere
    So, about another £7billion to go......
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,812

    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
    I agree with you as regards the Royals, CR, but we can't dispute it is special pleading. It should however mean that we are now likely to hear less of the sillier 'magic money tree' jibes that are used to demolish support for unpopular spending. Some may even feel compelled to resort to reason instead.
    No, I have explained the difference downthread.

    Magic money tree means there is a way of generating endless amounts of finance for public services, at little or no cost to the average taxpayer. McDonnell was proposing £50bn extra every year, and that was just what he admitted to, and he didn’t even bother to put together a broader deficit reduction plan.

    This is a £1bn spending commitment over two years that, sure, the Tories would rather not have made, but there’s no doubt it will form part of an overall credible medium-term fiscal plan in the next budget.

    I’m far more concerned about reneging on the double-lock and WFA cuts, which will cost us an awful lot, rather than the above which is mainly about politics – a Labour/LD/SNP/PC deal would, of course, have cost an absolute fortune.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855
    OllyT said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Enjoy it while it lasts....As Mrs May and Ms Sturgeon have found out, Mr Gravity will catch up with you sooner or later....
    You mean like Brexit
    Or the EU?
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,556
    edited June 2017
    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries. That's what comes of having the muscle of being second largest economy in the world!

    It is also what comes from being a plain bloody stupid bureaucracy.

    If you don't like google, use somewhere else. It is not rocket science.

    The EU is incredibly butthurt about the failure of Europe to produce real tech giants.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    I don't get all the Magic Money stuff on here this morning. Labour proposed spending 250 billion in their manifesto. The Tories 'found' money that would probably have been available in any case to smooth the agreement to restore NI Executive. The way our democracy works is that smaller parties have power in the event of a hung parliament. Am I supposed to believe the SNP wouldn't have wanted to bring any further resources to Scotland by supporting Corbyn?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855
    Scott_P said:

    this is an appalling humiliation and there’s no escaping it.

    Quite literally within hours of the Brexit vote, almost exactly a year ago, the FM had decided that IndyRef2 was essential for the well being of the nation.

    There had to be legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament because, only by having the framework in place now, right now, this minute, could we be ready for lift off when the great day of decision came.

    There was a press conference when the Bill came forward. There was an official photograph of the First Minister, shoes off, relaxing on the sofa at Bute House, just dashing off a letter to Theresa May demanding the right to hold a vote.

    And this week? This week, not so much.

    We already know what the First Minister is going to say and it won’t be “Full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes!”


    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1197665/nicola-sturgeon-faces-unpleasant-task-of-shooting-indyref2-in-the-back-of-the-head-says-andrew-nicoll/
    the SNP leader looks tired
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,812

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Are people really wittering about a billion quid ?

    Its a trivial amount compared to the money thrown away so Cameron could play Lord Bountiful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

    And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.

    Planned Overseas Aid = Bad
    Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good

    What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
    It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.

    But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
    Another magic money tree follower ?!?

    Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
    So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.

    But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.

    Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
    Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
    Translation: you are annoyed the Tories are now securely in office.

    Go to bed.
    5 years is a long time. Corbyn might be too old to win by then, or any manner of other things may happen.

    The tories are in a pickle at the moment, but they're in power.

    All sorts of things can happen in 5 years.

    The Tories need to deliver hope, and an end to austerity.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    In a democracy elections are not out of the question. In a world with Trump as President, Corbyn as PM is not unthinkable. Bad, but not unthinkable.

    Have you thought about what it would be like with President Trump dealing with PM Corbyn.....?

    What a pair!
    a couple of years ago we used to joke about it.....now...
    Perhaps Spitting Image will make a comeback?
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382

    Sean_F said:

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
    It really would be sweet electoral revenge if the far Left proposed a raid on property, that made the dementia tax look like pennies in a tin, and came a cropper as a result.

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
    Well they're thinking of it with LVT.
    LVT is a sensible solution to a difficult problem but I'm not sure if it is politically feasible. It would certainly be less toxic than trying to abolish the cgt exemption on main residences, although that too would be perfectly sensible from all points of view except the crucial one of electoral consequences.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,812
    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
    Interesting how righties always jump to the defence of an hereditary privileged institution that much of the world had the good sense to bin years ago.
    Interesting how countries that lefties hold-up as pillars of socialism, like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, have all held onto their royal families.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713
    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    Yes, that would. Of course CGT used to have either indexation (or taper relief) until it was removed by a certain G Brown.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,939
    Blue_rog said:

    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries.

    Well they've got to find the shortfall from the UK's contributions somewhere
    Shame the UK havn't got that sort of muscle anymore. I suppose they could try to fine the Saudis a herd of camels for their unlawful demands on Al Jazeera that they stop broadcasting.

    But they'd probably be ignored.....
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Mr. Nakht, quite. I was very amused to hear Sturgeon's calling the deal 'pork barrel politics' and, in the next breath, is upset Scotland isn't getting any money :p
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382
    edited June 2017
    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    OK, but why index CGT and no other tax, tax exemption or allowance? If you want to index, index the whole system. It would be manifestly unfair to index just one particular part of it.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713

    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    OK, but why index CGT and no other tax, tax exeption or allowance? If you want to index, index the whole system. It would be manifestly unfair to index just one particular part of it.
    Because CGT represents the growth in asset value over time, so making a recognising of the value/cost of that time makes sense.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,715

    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    OK, but why index CGT and no other tax, tax exemption or allowance? If you want to index, index the whole system. It would be manifestly unfair to index just one particular part of it.
    I agree.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,926
    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries. That's what comes of having the muscle of being second largest economy in the world!

    Where does that money go?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382
    edited June 2017

    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    Yes, that would. Of course CGT used to have either indexation (or taper relief) until it was removed by a certain G Brown.
    It was never more than a sop to certain pressure groups, and served no real fiscal purpose. It certainly had nothing to do with fairness.

    Edit: On reflection, it did have one important and indisputable benefit. It helped to keep me in gainful employment for many years!
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855
    edited June 2017

    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
    I agree with you as regards the Royals, CR, but we can't dispute it is special pleading. It should however mean that we are now likely to hear less of the sillier 'magic money tree' jibes that are used to demolish support for unpopular spending. Some may even feel compelled to resort to reason instead.
    This is a £1bn spending commitment over two years.
    While total UK government spending will be £1,500 billion......not even a Magic Money Twig
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,713

    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    Yes, that would. Of course CGT used to have either indexation (or taper relief) until it was removed by a certain G Brown.
    It was never more than a sop to certain pressure groups, and served no real fiscal purpose. It certainly had nothing to do with fairness.
    Indexiation accounts for inflation in the growth of the value of assets. Makes sense to me.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,108
    edited June 2017

    Mr. Nakht, quite. I was very amused to hear Sturgeon's calling the deal 'pork barrel politics' and, in the next breath, is upset Scotland isn't getting any money :p

    Most amusing was the DUP spokesperson in the Commons threatening to publish their discussion in 2010 and 2015 with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, before calling them out for arrant hypocrisy.
    I'm not a fan of the DUP, to put it mildly, but I don't think any party in the Commons is in a good position to criticise this deal from a position of principle.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    On Topic:

    David Davis is doing Brexit. I cannot see how he could do PM as well so that would mean changing the Brexit Secretary mid-Brexit. Not wise ... (then again, this is the Tory party we are talking about)

    Amber Rudd has a majority of 346 which makes her unsuitable as a candidate - too vulnerable to a decapitation strategy

    Boris is, IMO, simply utterly unsuitable. There seemed to be collective gasps of astonishment around the world when he was made Foreign Secretary. If he made PM the noise of the laughter would be deafening.

    Ruth Davidson is not an MP so how could she do PMQs and such?

    So that leaves Javid, Patel or Hammond
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,739

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Are people really wittering about a billion quid ?

    Its a trivial amount compared to the money thrown away so Cameron could play Lord Bountiful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

    And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.

    Planned Overseas Aid = Bad
    Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good

    What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
    It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.

    But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
    Another magic money tree follower ?!?

    Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
    ...

    Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
    Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
    Translation: you are annoyed the Tories are now securely in office.

    Go to bed.
    5 years is a long time. Corbyn might be too old to win by then, or any manner of other things may happen.

    The tories are in a pickle at the moment, but they're in power.

    What can they do with their power?
    Nothing which would annoy more than 7 (currently) of their own MPs.
    Nothing that would annoy the DUP.

    I know that the DUP will support the government in a confidence vote and the finance bill (which they will have influenced), but everything else is fair game.
    That may mean that it doesn't actually get to a vote and that it's defused before that stage.
    So over Brexit you may get to the point where the DUP want one thing and the Tory awkward squad are equally keen on the opposite.
    Interesting times.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,578
    May didn't sign the DUP deal herself because the Tories wanted a deal that would last....
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382

    On Topic:

    David Davis is doing Brexit. I cannot see how he could do PM as well so that would mean changing the Brexit Secretary mid-Brexit. Not wise ... (then again, this is the Tory party we are talking about)

    Amber Rudd has a majority of 346 which makes her unsuitable as a candidate - too vulnerable to a decapitation strategy

    Boris is, IMO, simply utterly unsuitable. There seemed to be collective gasps of astonishment around the world when he was made Foreign Secretary. If he made PM the noise of the laughter would be deafening.

    Ruth Davidson is not an MP so how could she do PMQs and such?

    So that leaves Javid, Patel or Hammond

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,939
    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries. That's what comes of having the muscle of being second largest economy in the world!

    It is also what comes from being a plain bloody stupid bureaucracy.

    If you don't like google, use somewhere else. It is not rocket science.

    When the Americans fine multinationals for restrictive or dishonest practices it's OK. When our kith and kin do it it's an overpowerful bureaucracy.

    Time to get down on all fours and try to see it from a Tory's point of view.....
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!

    We still do.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302

    In a democracy elections are not out of the question. In a world with Trump as President, Corbyn as PM is not unthinkable. Bad, but not unthinkable.

    Have you thought about what it would be like with President Trump dealing with PM Corbyn.....?

    What a pair!
    a couple of years ago we used to joke about it.....now...
    Perhaps Spitting Image will make a comeback?
    It is. HBO is making it.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Jonathan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    The government are paying a going rate of £100M a vote. That's a big incentive.
    ...even that's untrue. There will be hundreds of votes on which the DUP will support the Govt. The left and Mathematics are strangers to one another.
    Oh.. so if the DUP support the govt 200 times then £5m per vote is a good rate?
    The election result produced only two plausible governments:

    (1) A Tory minority with explicit support from the DUP
    (2) A Tory minority without explicit support from the DUP.

    Buying a restoration of Stormont (as that's what the £1bn is actually buying) seems reasonable for the upgrade from option 2 to option 1...
    Looking for a rationalisation always seems reasonable too...

    They should have tried option 2 first and maybe if their policies are good enough then the DUP and LibDems and others might have sided with them anyway.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited June 2017
    EU Decision on goggle is total horse shit. There are loads of other successful price comparison sites, most of which are better than goggle shopping.

    It is like their bullshit over IE explorer. The likes of Firefox and chrome came along and the consumer is smart enough to realise those are better browsers.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Mrs C, Javid's got a good back story but not much else. Not persuaded by Patel. Hammond's got the experience in high office, and being kept out of the election campaign, perversely, has helped him as he can't possibly be blamed for that failure.

    Mr. B, indeed. One can argue the rights and wrongs of releasing such information, but it would highlight the comic hypocrisy.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,108

    kjh said:

    No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.

    Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!

    I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
    OK, but why index CGT and no other tax, tax exemption or allowance? If you want to index, index the whole system. It would be manifestly unfair to index just one particular part of it.
    A fair point, but there is a difference.
    Budgets tend to change the levels exemptions and allowances from year to year anyway (usually to taxpayers' benefit, since journalists cottoned on to the concept of 'fiscal drag', and started criticising chancellors for it).

    CGT without indexation is effectively a tax on inflation, which is hugely unfair, and utterly corrosive to any incentives to save, as well as creating economically damaging friction in any trading of assets.

  • Options
    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    The infrastructure in NI is dismal. Broadband provision is shocking. Roads and rail services are chronically bad.

    Do you know how many cuurently-operational railway stations are in County Fermanagh? Rounded up to the nearest unit there are, erm, none.

    How many miles of motorway exist out in the west? None.

    How many miles of dual carriageway in Fermanagh and Omagh Council area? Possibly one just outside Omagh.

    Not to mention we have to put up with regular news of 'paramilitary-style shootings' as terrorism is now called here.

    The idea that the people of the home counties are going to be providing a golden Blankety Blank chequebook and pen for the denizens of the bogs is unfair.

    As someone in both camps, I find NI odd but I find the coverage of NI from GB even more odd.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855
    IanB2 said:

    May didn't sign the DUP deal herself because the Tories wanted a deal that would last....

    No, because it was a deal between Parties the Whips signed it.

    Foster didn't sign for the DUP either.

    Nice try.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    ... It was never more than a sop to certain pressure groups, and served no real fiscal purpose. It certainly had nothing to do with fairness ...

    "Fairness" is a word that politicians usually trot out when their policies are attempting the exact opposite. It is in the same category as that other weasel phrase "... all we are asking is that people pay a little bit more ..." used when it is time to squeeze until the pips squeak

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,843

    Mr. Nakht, quite. I was very amused to hear Sturgeon's calling the deal 'pork barrel politics' and, in the next breath, is upset Scotland isn't getting any money :p

    She actually called the DUP deal “the worst kind of pork-barrel politics” Presumably hers is a classier kind of pork-barrel politics.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!

    We still do.
    Yes, but isn't it nice to have a new act to keep us entertained, Richard!

    Any more news about the bounced cheque? I still haven't put my money back into my Betfair account. Am I overreacting? I was thinking of writing to ask them if they are going skint, but am a bit concerned they might close my account out of spite. They remain one of the few firms that will take my bets these days, so I'd better not upset them.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,939

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    The infrastructure in NI is dismal. Broadband provision is shocking. Roads and rail services are chronically bad.

    Do you know how many cuurently-operational railway stations are in County Fermanagh? Rounded up to the nearest unit there are, erm, none.

    How many miles of motorway exist out in the west? None.

    How many miles of dual carriageway in Fermanagh and Omagh Council area? Possibly one just outside Omagh.

    Not to mention we have to put up with regular news of 'paramilitary-style shootings' as terrorism is now called here.

    The idea that the people of the home counties are going to be providing a golden Blankety Blank chequebook and pen for the denizens of the bogs is unfair.

    As someone in both camps, I find NI odd but I find the coverage of NI from GB even more odd.

    Wouldn't it be better then if they joined up with their countrymen in the South who are thriving in the EU?
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    The infrastructure in NI is dismal. Broadband provision is shocking. Roads and rail services are chronically bad.

    Do you know how many cuurently-operational railway stations are in County Fermanagh? Rounded up to the nearest unit there are, erm, none.

    How many miles of motorway exist out in the west? None.

    How many miles of dual carriageway in Fermanagh and Omagh Council area? Possibly one just outside Omagh.

    Not to mention we have to put up with regular news of 'paramilitary-style shootings' as terrorism is now called here.

    The idea that the people of the home counties are going to be providing a golden Blankety Blank chequebook and pen for the denizens of the bogs is unfair.

    As someone in both camps, I find NI odd but I find the coverage of NI from GB even more odd.

    That's unfair, there must be atleast 3 miles of motorway round Dungannon

    I mean that billion quid could fund 3 meters of Crossrail
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,739

    IanB2 said:

    May didn't sign the DUP deal herself because the Tories wanted a deal that would last....

    No, because it was a deal between Parties the Whips signed it.

    Foster didn't sign for the DUP either.

    Nice try.
    Um, I think it was a joke ;-)
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2017

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!

    We still do.
    Yes, but isn't it nice to have a new act to keep us entertained, Richard!

    Any more news about the bounced cheque? I still haven't put my money back into my Betfair account. Am I overreacting? I was thinking of writing to ask them if they are going skint, but am a bit concerned they might close my account out of spite. They remain one of the few firms that will take my bets these days, so I'd better not upset them.
    I've given them until 1pm today to respond. I'm not optimistic - they seem, frankly, completely uninterested in the fact that I'm currently £1000 out of pocket. They've twice said they'll contact me but I haven't heard a dickie.

    At 1pm I'm going to go through their escalation process, and if that doesn't produce at least some response, then I guess it's either IBAS or the regulator.

    I think it's just a cock-up, but it does smell a bit odd, and I think you are right to limit exposure.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382

    ... It was never more than a sop to certain pressure groups, and served no real fiscal purpose. It certainly had nothing to do with fairness ...

    "Fairness" is a word that politicians usually trot out when their policies are attempting the exact opposite. It is in the same category as that other weasel phrase "... all we are asking is that people pay a little bit more ..." used when it is time to squeeze until the pips squeak

    When I was in the biz, there was a widely quoted phrase which was in fact a legal principle upheld over centuries of tax law. It stated 'there is no equity in taxes'. In other words, fairness has nothing to do with it. This isn't cynicism, it just the way the (taxation) law works.

    When somebody starts talking about fairness in relation to taxation, you know you are about to be confronted with humbug.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    An extra £50 million for mental health in the part of the UK with the highest suicide rate seems entirely appropriate.....the total deal is a fraction of a percent of UK government spending....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,108
    Roger said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries.

    Well they've got to find the shortfall from the UK's contributions somewhere
    Shame the UK havn't got that sort of muscle anymore. I suppose they could try to fine the Saudis a herd of camels for their unlawful demands on Al Jazeera that they stop broadcasting.

    But they'd probably be ignored.....
    Not entirely true - should we actually leave the EU, there's nothing to stop us fining Google et al in a similar manner... other than the fear of retaliation.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,578
    edited June 2017

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!

    We still do.
    Yes, but isn't it nice to have a new act to keep us entertained, Richard!

    Any more news about the bounced cheque? I still haven't put my money back into my Betfair account. Am I overreacting? I was thinking of writing to ask them if they are going skint, but am a bit concerned they might close my account out of spite. They remain one of the few firms that will take my bets these days, so I'd better not upset them.
    I've given them until 1pm today to respond. I'm not optimistic - they seem, frankly, completely uninterested in the fact that I'm currently £1000 out of pocket. They've twice said they'll contact me but I haven't heard a dickie.

    At 1pm I'm going to go through their escalation process, and if that doesn't produce at least some response, then I guess it's either IBAS or the regulator.

    I think it's just a cock-up, but it does smell a bit odd, and I think you are right to limit exposure.
    I've been emptying my account of much of its GE balance last week, and have been paid every time. So hopefully no need to worry.

    Although Betfair has clearly been dragging its feet in settling markets - for example not settling the "GE in 2017" market until polling day, which was ridiculous.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,939
    rkrkrk said:

    Roger said:

    OT EU fining Google £2 billion is interesting. Catching onto the American idea of fining companies from other countries. That's what comes of having the muscle of being second largest economy in the world!

    Where does that money go?
    Pass....
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,520
    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,125
    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,578

    IanB2 said:

    May didn't sign the DUP deal herself because the Tories wanted a deal that would last....

    No, because it was a deal between Parties the Whips signed it.

    Foster didn't sign for the DUP either.

    Nice try.
    There is no reason why leaders can't sign deals between parties, as Cameron and Clegg did personally in 2010. And as I did when I was in local government coalition.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited June 2017

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    The infrastructure in NI is dismal. Broadband provision is shocking. Roads and rail services are chronically bad.

    Do you know how many cuurently-operational railway stations are in County Fermanagh? Rounded up to the nearest unit there are, erm, none.

    How many miles of motorway exist out in the west? None.

    How many miles of dual carriageway in Fermanagh and Omagh Council area? Possibly one just outside Omagh.

    Not to mention we have to put up with regular news of 'paramilitary-style shootings' as terrorism is now called here.

    The idea that the people of the home counties are going to be providing a golden Blankety Blank chequebook and pen for the denizens of the bogs is unfair.

    As someone in both camps, I find NI odd but I find the coverage of NI from GB even more odd.

    Where is the vast bulk of NI's population? In and around Belfast. In fact you could almost say that west of the Bann (upper or lower), the place is nearly empty. That is why the M1 stops at Dungannon and the M2 at Antrim. 61,000 live in Fermanagh. 600,000 live in Co Antrim and 500,000 in Co Down.

    The roads, rail and money are being put were the people are. Rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales have the same problems. Try getting broadband at my mother-in-law's house (in Wales) and the nearest motorway (the M54) is 40 to 50 miles away.
  • Options

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    An extra £50 million for mental health in the part of the UK with the highest suicide rate seems entirely appropriate.....the total deal is a fraction of a percent of UK government spending....
    The awful mental health is clearly partly Troubles related. The number of times violent incidents are mentioned to me in all sorts of contexts is remarkable if you don't have experience of it.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,812
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
    It was unavoidable if a sustainable government was to be created.

    It's no better or worse than George Osborne's habit of funding infrastructure projects in marginal constituencies to reward loyalty amongst backbenchers.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!

    We still do.
    Yes, but isn't it nice to have a new act to keep us entertained, Richard!

    Any more news about the bounced cheque? I still haven't put my money back into my Betfair account. Am I overreacting? I was thinking of writing to ask them if they are going skint, but am a bit concerned they might close my account out of spite. They remain one of the few firms that will take my bets these days, so I'd better not upset them.
    I've given them until 1pm today to respond. I'm not optimistic - they seem, frankly, completely uninterested in the fact that I'm currently £1000 out of pocket. They've twice said they'll contact me but I haven't heard a dickie.

    At 1pm I'm going to go through their escalation process, and if that doesn't produce at least some response, then I guess it's either IBAS or the regulator.

    I think it's just a cock-up, but it does smell a bit odd, and I think you are right to limit exposure.
    Thanks, Richard. Can you please keep us all posted on developments.

    Some years ago I had a run-in with Paddy Power which may be relevant to this. It concerned the settlement of a bet, and when PP refused to pay out I wrote a thread header on the matter whick Mike published. This led to it being widely publicised and discussed on betting forums, including Betfair's. As a consequence, PP did a rapid u-turn and I got paid out promptly.

    If the delay continues, perhaps you might ask Mike to publish a cautionary note on a thread header here for the benefit of all PB posters who may have an account with Betfair.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    felix said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
    Surely it is 24 hours to save the NHS? It has been for years.... 24 hours seems to be a long time in politics :D
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855
    Any chance of securing herself a seat at the negotiating table — always slim at best — has surely been dashed by her indiscretion in the final hours of the General Election. Disclosing the contents of a private phone conversation with Kezia Dugdale in the hopes of gaining political advantage has demonstrated that, when it comes to it, Miss Sturgeon cannot be trusted with a confidence. The fortunes of the nation are not bound up in whether Kezia Dugdale really supports or opposes independence but the sensitive information involved in the Brexit talks — and the political, diplomatic and economic stakes — mean no rational government would allow Miss Sturgeon anywhere near the discussions.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2017/06/26/now-sturgeon-must-show-humility-and-get-on-with-the-day-job/
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,843
    There's a thirty pieces of silver ring to the billion pound bung to the DUP. Presumably the Temple management committee (if I remember the Bible story correctly) thought thirty pieces of silver were cheap at price and a price worth paying to keep the rabble rouser out, as many are commenting here. Both are precise and memorable sums. What the Conservatives get for £1 billion of other people's money is a DUP promise not to participate in the inevitable Brexit ambushes. But as controversial legislation only gets passed thanks to DUP votes, you can be sure the £1 billion bribe will be thrown back in the faces of the Conservative government.

    Nevertheless probably better to have the deal than not have it from the Conservatives POV.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    DavidL said:

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.

    If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.

    It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    An extra £50 million for mental health in the part of the UK with the highest suicide rate seems entirely appropriate.....the total deal is a fraction of a percent of UK government spending....
    The awful mental health is clearly partly Troubles related. The number of times violent incidents are mentioned to me in all sorts of contexts is remarkable if you don't have experience of it.

    Mental Health is also poorly funded on the mainland too. It has been a known problem for quite a few years and waiting lists can actually be years long in some areas.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,855

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
    It was unavoidable if a sustainable government was to be created.

    It's no better or worse than George Osborne's habit of funding infrastructure projects in marginal constituencies to reward loyalty amongst backbenchers.
    It's less than 0.07% of total government spending........
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    edited June 2017

    felix said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
    Surely it is 24 hours to save the NHS? It has been for years.... 24 hours seems to be a long time in politics :D
    It has varied, but it's never been 45 minutes. That was Saddam's WMDs, I think?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Mr. 43, I'm not sure killing Jesus and funding increased infrastructure spending in Northern Ireland are necessarily comparable.

    Mr. 43 (2), I do apologise, you're quite right. It's like the 2010 election when the choice was evil Tory cuts and kind Labour cuts.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    felix said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
    Surely it is 24 hours to save the NHS? It has been for years.... 24 hours seems to be a long time in politics :D
    It has varied, but it's never been 45 minutes. That was Saddam's WMDs, I think?
    :+1:
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    felix said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
    Surely it is 24 hours to save the NHS? It has been for years.... 24 hours seems to be a long time in politics :D
    It has varied, but it's never been 45 minutes. That was Saddam's WMDs, I think?
    :+1:
    "Flash, I love you! But we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!"
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    edited June 2017

    Erm...so that leaves, in effect, er.....Hammond!

    Oh how we used to laugh at the lack of talent in the Labour ranks!!

    We still do.
    Yes, but isn't it nice to have a new act to keep us entertained, Richard!

    Any more news about the bounced cheque? I still haven't put my money back into my Betfair account. Am I overreacting? I was thinking of writing to ask them if they are going skint, but am a bit concerned they might close my account out of spite. They remain one of the few firms that will take my bets these days, so I'd better not upset them.
    I've given them until 1pm today to respond. I'm not optimistic - they seem, frankly, completely uninterested in the fact that I'm currently £1000 out of pocket. They've twice said they'll contact me but I haven't heard a dickie.

    At 1pm I'm going to go through their escalation process, and if that doesn't produce at least some response, then I guess it's either IBAS or the regulator.

    I think it's just a cock-up, but it does smell a bit odd, and I think you are right to limit exposure.
    How come it is being done by cheque ?

    I've always done withdrawals to the bankcards I've paid in on (And the rest for a -ve balance).
    Am guessing that was them and not you...
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Hilarious. Would be even better if the last page just said - but capitalism does, thanks for the contribution.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    felix said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
    Surely it is 24 hours to save the NHS? It has been for years.... 24 hours seems to be a long time in politics :D
    It has varied, but it's never been 45 minutes. That was Saddam's WMDs, I think?
    :+1:
    "Flash, I love you! But we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!"
    :lol:
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    ... It was never more than a sop to certain pressure groups, and served no real fiscal purpose. It certainly had nothing to do with fairness ...

    "Fairness" is a word that politicians usually trot out when their policies are attempting the exact opposite. It is in the same category as that other weasel phrase "... all we are asking is that people pay a little bit more ..." used when it is time to squeeze until the pips squeak

    When I was in the biz, there was a widely quoted phrase which was in fact a legal principle upheld over centuries of tax law. It stated 'there is no equity in taxes'. In other words, fairness has nothing to do with it. This isn't cynicism, it just the way the (taxation) law works.

    When somebody starts talking about fairness in relation to taxation, you know you are about to be confronted with humbug.
    :+1::+1::+1:

    Fairness is in the eye of the beholder
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,382
    FF43 said:

    There's a thirty pieces of silver ring to the billion pound bung to the DUP. Presumably the Temple management committee (if I remember the Bible story correctly) thought thirty pieces of silver were cheap at price and a price worth paying to keep the rabble rouser out, as many are commenting here. Both are precise and memorable sums. What the Conservatives get for £1 billion of other people's money is a DUP promise not to participate in the inevitable Brexit ambushes. But as controversial legislation only gets passed thanks to DUP votes, you can be sure the £1 billion bribe will be thrown back in the faces of the Conservative government.

    Nevertheless probably better to have the deal than not have it from the Conservatives POV.

    That's an excellent description of the difference between a rock and a hard place.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    What's the deadline for Lib Dems to throw their marzipan hats into the ring?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,520

    DavidL said:

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.

    If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.

    It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
    That is unfortunately true Richard but it doesn't make the bung any less offensive.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,926

    Much as I am anti the DUP deal and, indeed, anti the DUP, the idea that this fairly small bung is 'wasted' cash is frankly insulting to anyone who resides in NI.

    The infrastructure in NI is dismal. Broadband provision is shocking. Roads and rail services are chronically bad.

    Do you know how many cuurently-operational railway stations are in County Fermanagh? Rounded up to the nearest unit there are, erm, none.

    How many miles of motorway exist out in the west? None.

    How many miles of dual carriageway in Fermanagh and Omagh Council area? Possibly one just outside Omagh.

    Not to mention we have to put up with regular news of 'paramilitary-style shootings' as terrorism is now called here.

    The idea that the people of the home counties are going to be providing a golden Blankety Blank chequebook and pen for the denizens of the bogs is unfair.

    As someone in both camps, I find NI odd but I find the coverage of NI from GB even more odd.

    Indeed - compared to some of the crap that gets funded in the US, or the dubious spending decisions made by the EU in the name of deal making this is good governance.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Pulpstar said:

    How come it is being done by cheque ?

    I've always done withdrawals to the bankcards I've paid in on (And the rest for a -ve balance).
    Am guessing that was them and not you...

    Because they only let you withdraw a limited amount to a card (the total amount you've paid in on that same card). So I withdrew the maximum amount I could on my card - that went through without problem - and had to go for the cheque option for the rest of the amount I wanted to withdraw.

    I think I might withdraw more now, assuming I can get this issue resolved.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    DavidL said:

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.

    If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative.
    Or Labour, in sufficient numbers to give them a majority.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCParliament: At 14:20 LIVE
    Scottish Parliament statement:
    @NicolaSturgeon on #brexit and the proposals for #Indyref2
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    Pulpstar said:

    How come it is being done by cheque ?

    I've always done withdrawals to the bankcards I've paid in on (And the rest for a -ve balance).
    Am guessing that was them and not you...

    Because they only let you withdraw a limited amount to a card (the total amount you've paid in on that same card). So I withdrew the maximum amount I could on my card - that went through without problem - and had to go for the cheque option for the rest of the amount I wanted to withdraw.

    I think I might withdraw more now, assuming I can get this issue resolved.
    Is that true? I have negative net deposits on two different cards...
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,926

    Pulpstar said:

    How come it is being done by cheque ?

    I've always done withdrawals to the bankcards I've paid in on (And the rest for a -ve balance).
    Am guessing that was them and not you...

    Because they only let you withdraw a limited amount to a card (the total amount you've paid in on that same card). So I withdrew the maximum amount I could on my card - that went through without problem - and had to go for the cheque option for the rest of the amount I wanted to withdraw.

    I think I might withdraw more now, assuming I can get this issue resolved.
    Are you sure about that? I'm sure I once (back in the long gone profitable days) withdrew much more than I had put in via card. Maybe they've changed policy...
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    felix said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    We only have 45 minutes to save the Earth. Bomb the buggers
    I thought we had 45 minutes to save the NHS. :) what is it about 45minutes?
    Surely it is 24 hours to save the NHS? It has been for years.... 24 hours seems to be a long time in politics :D
    It has varied, but it's never been 45 minutes. That was Saddam's WMDs, I think?
    :+1:
    "Flash, I love you! But we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth!"
    14??? I always thought that was 24 hours? Having said that, Dale Arden always struck me as the sort of person who probably thought a day had 14 hours in it
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    I don't really object to the DUP "deal", either in terms of them getting extra money or in terms of them being "influential" in the UK government.

    But it is quite worrying that they've so comprehensively outplayed May in these negotiations. If she can be played for a chump by a tiny Northern Irish party, how the hell is she going to handle 27 European leaders?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2017
    Danny565 said:

    DavidL said:

    Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.

    If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative.
    Or Labour, in sufficient numbers to give them a majority.
    No, that would simply have meant that they were being held to ransom by much bigger and more expensive vested interests - rich graduates, union barons, Southern rail drivers, the usual list. Oh, and wealthy pensioners of course, although it looks as though we're stuck with that now anyway.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,926
    Danny565 said:

    I don't really object to the DUP "deal", either in terms of them getting extra money or in terms of them being "influential" in the UK government.

    But it is quite worrying that they've so comprehensively outplayed May in these negotiations. If she can be played for a chump by a tiny Northern Irish party, how the hell is she going to handle 27 European leaders?

    Has she been outplayed?
    £1bn is a lot per capita but not that much in the grand scheme of things...
    I think it's hard to judge whether it's too much or about right...
  • Options
    oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455
    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How come it is being done by cheque ?

    I've always done withdrawals to the bankcards I've paid in on (And the rest for a -ve balance).
    Am guessing that was them and not you...

    Because they only let you withdraw a limited amount to a card (the total amount you've paid in on that same card). So I withdrew the maximum amount I could on my card - that went through without problem - and had to go for the cheque option for the rest of the amount I wanted to withdraw.

    I think I might withdraw more now, assuming I can get this issue resolved.
    Are you sure about that? I'm sure I once (back in the long gone profitable days) withdrew much more than I had put in via card. Maybe they've changed policy...
    You can withdraw more than you put in by card as long as you don't have any other payment methods active through which you have deposited more than you have taken out.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    How come it is being done by cheque ?

    I've always done withdrawals to the bankcards I've paid in on (And the rest for a -ve balance).
    Am guessing that was them and not you...

    Because they only let you withdraw a limited amount to a card (the total amount you've paid in on that same card). So I withdrew the maximum amount I could on my card - that went through without problem - and had to go for the cheque option for the rest of the amount I wanted to withdraw.

    I think I might withdraw more now, assuming I can get this issue resolved.
    Are you sure about that? I'm sure I once (back in the long gone profitable days) withdrew much more than I had put in via card. Maybe they've changed policy...
    See here:

    https://en-betfair.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDk4NTYxMzI4L3NpZC91aTZkWTltbg==

    The problem comes when your debit card expires when you've got money tied up on the exchange.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Hash! Just a drug, better than Dutch courage.
This discussion has been closed.