The big difference between the lottery and FOBT is the lack of instant "feedback". The lottery you buy the ticket then have to wait for the draw and there is no deliberate "oh so close" mechanism. FOBT is instant and the machine is deliberately programmed to return results that are near misses which play on people's psylogical impulses that close this time means winner next time.
Leaving aside the political aspect for a moment, I do urge people to hear the interview. Really remarkable. I hope he gets an appropriate medal.
Very much seconded. The recent terror attacks have seen some remarkable examples of bravery and courage and kindness by the emergency services and members of the public. Really very humbling.
As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.
The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.
Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.
I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.
Indeed.
Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.
My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.
Surely it's better to tax stupid people than bright ones? Easier, too.
As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.
The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.
Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.
I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.
Indeed.
Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.
My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.
I agree about FOBTs and lottery scratchcards. I disagree about the lottery itself. Most people who participate in the lottery know that the odds are rubbish. They're not betting to make a shrewd investment. They're buying a dream. At £2, it's cheap.
Your numbers (8,17,23,39,46,47) have won a total of £679 since the first ever draw, including 440 three ball wins. It would have cost you £2632 to play every time, resulting in a loss of £1,953.
As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.
The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.
Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.
I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.
Indeed.
Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.
My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.
Surely it's better to tax stupid people than bright ones? Easier, too.
As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.
The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.
Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.
I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.
Indeed.
Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.
My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.
Surely it's better to tax stupid people than bright ones? Easier, too.
I guess as years go by more and more people have the photo driving license, so yes it has probably made the card a bit redundant - but a lot of people still don't have the photo ones. My mother only just got a photo one after years of us mocking her papyrus elder scroll version.
It seems like one of those issues people treat as "the thin end of the wedge", when in reality it wouldn't change much at all.
If an ID card were introduced, presumably all sorts of people will demand to see it, perhaps with penalties for non-compliance. Otherwise, what's the point of introducing them? That's the difference; that's why it's the thin end of the slippery slope.
In terms of privacy, we already voluntarily tell various internet firms what we watch and read, retailers and bankers know what we buy, from which they can infer our lifestyles and families. We voluntarily carry round tracking devices in the form of mobile phones, and some people plant bugs in their own houses -- because those voice-controlled devices are listening all the time.
So it is not just privacy for most people, but the intrusive state.
Does anyone with a driving licence ever not go out without it in their wallets or purses?
Its an ID card already
Yes, I never carry my driving licence or passport. If you are stopped and asked to show your licence you can take it to a police station within a few days.
Yes I'm the same. I've only ever had to show it once.
Also, neither mine nor my wife's are equivalent to ID cards because they don't have a photo (they are the pink type). And our two sons (mid 20s) don't have driving licenses because they don't drive. Based on this completely random sample of 4, there must be lots of people who don't have driving licenses which could serve as ID cards.
Why would most EU nationals object to a Permanent residency card anyway. I believe 25 out of 28 EU member states already have national ID cards and in many cases it is compulsory to carry them at all times and to access public services.
Of the other 3 Ireland is rolling out one via its new public services card. What is wrong with having a card to prove entitlement to access free public services - maybe the NHS should require them too. It might assist in stopping abuses of the system and ensure only those eligible for free services get them.
If it's not a problem for EU nationals bar Danes in their own country - why should it be an issue for them here.
Obviously it is an ID card. It is an ID card for people who are not British but are being welcomed here and given the use of our NHS, benefits system and other public services free of charge.
Of course we are doing this because the vast majority of these people are contributors to our society not because we are nice but even so we still need to distinguish between those entitled and those not. Is there something wrong with that? Are Europeans, who pretty much all have such documents in their own countries really going to get wound up about this?
The EU position seems to be that EU citizens should have identical rights in the UK after the UK has left the EU. It is a somewhat odd proposition if you think about it.
I've still never really understood why people are so against ID cards at all in the UK. As you say, most other countries in Europe manage with them, without turning into totalitarian surveillance states. The government should really just bring them in for everyone. It's also a big part of why so many Calais migrants try to get in to the UK - no ID checks once you are inside.
The reality for most adults is that the photo ID driving licence serves the same function. I think there is also an underlying principle that you are not accountable to functionaries of the state and required to produce your papers but I find it hard to get excited about it personally.
I carry a Court pass which allows me through security in Courts without my bags being searched and into prisons (and more importantly out again). Would I have fewer rights if I had to carry an ID card? Struggle to see it.
I guess as years go by more and more people have the photo driving license, so yes it has probably made the card a bit redundant - but a lot of people still don't have the photo ones. My mother only just got a photo one after years of us mocking her papyrus elder scroll version.
It seems like one of those issues people treat as "the thin end of the wedge", when in reality it wouldn't change much at all.
As someone said below: the card might just be the tip of the iceberg: what matters more is not the design of the card, but the laws surrounding its usage (e.g. when it should be used) and the data backends.
A card, in itself, is pointless. The concerns should be with the system the card is within.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
There are High Streets with 12-14 bookies on them ???
One thing which has surprised me is that the number of betting shops has increased - I would have thought that with internet betting they would have fallen.
Though, personally, I would be quite happy to see fewer betting shops and likewise fewer coffee shops, pound shops and general cheap tat shops. With the property thus freed up redeveloped for residential use.
Again, that seems sensible. Wembley had a rather interesting building stuck up near the Central station which was flats and some decent shops. If some of the bookies were closed and allowed for redevelopment it would make the street look much better even if they were purely residential units (which would be very valuable). While I accept High Streets denuded of shops are not ideal, where there are only bookies, coffee shops, pound shops and charity shops they are not worth a damn as High Streets anyway.
Residential development is the only logical solution to the slow and apparently inexorable death of (non major city) town centres. And there is no reason that urban living can't be made a very attractive option.
As for the politics, the Conservative-DUP deal is pretty much as might have been expected. One area that does interest me is the implementation of the Gambling Commission Review relating to the amounts that can be played on FOBTs in betting shops.
The DUP has actually supported Labour, LDs, SNP and others in wanting the stake reduced to £2 while the Conservatives have supported the betting industry and want to keep the status quo. I think if the question went to the floor of the Commons it's entirely possible the Government would lose.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
Otherwise, after the febrile excitement of recent times, I suspect a quieter period may be approaching. I do think in the longer term the Conservatives are done and you can put a fork in them now. By 2022, they will have been in office for 12 years and that's approaching "time for a change" territory. Corbyn's toxicity was over done as well but if I were Labour (and the LDs as well), I'd be thinking now about the kind of Britain the 2020s and the departure from the EU will present.
Personally, I think that this is a recommendation that should be implemented. The damage done by FOBTs is horrendous and if the price paid is slightly fewer betting shops in the High Street that is a price worth paying. Its like arguing Boots would have more branches if only they could sell crack.
I would be surprised and disappointed if there were not a number of Tory MPs who did not feel the same.
Indeed.
Though isn't the National Lottery effectively a FOBT with the proceeds used for government benefit.
My late father in law always said he was too much of a gambler to play the lottery. FOBTs and the lottery are a tax on the stupid in large part and objectionable for that reason alone.
I agree about FOBTs and lottery scratchcards. I disagree about the lottery itself. Most people who participate in the lottery know that the odds are rubbish. They're not betting to make a shrewd investment. They're buying a dream. At £2, it's cheap.
Your numbers (8,17,23,39,46,47) have won a total of £679 since the first ever draw, including 440 three ball wins. It would have cost you £2632 to play every time, resulting in a loss of £1,953.
John Major won in 1992 against the odds and despite a recession after 13 years of the Tories in power when Kinnock expected to win on his second attempt, much as Corbyn does now, Major won 41% and held almost all the 42% who voted for Thatcher in 1987 given 42% voted for May in 2017 the Tories in 2022 need to do the same
I expected one of the Conservative members and supporters to come back on this and I wasn't disappointed.
There is the key difference that Margaret Thatcher was deposed by her own backbenchers in November 1990. What the Conservatives therefore need to do is overthrow May in 2019 or 2020 and hope a new person will recapture the vote. The problem is May isn't Thatcher in 1987 - May is already a busted flush, you know that, I know that, most of the Conservative Party knows it.
There are other reasons why the 87-92 parallel doesn't work - in 1987 the Conservatives had a majority of 101. That was reduced to 21 (or so) in 1992 so if we take a similar 40-seat loss to Labour next time that doesn't end so well.
Relying on vote share only gets you so far - the Conservatives polled 42% and were hammered by Labour in 1966 while Labour won more votes but still lost in 1951. Yes, the Conservatives could go up a tiny amount and get a majority - they could go down a small amount and not be able to form a government.
In 1990 Thatcher's problem was the poll tax which was entirely associated with her and Major replaced with the council tax. May's problem was the dementia tax, which she has already dumped and arguably hard Brexit which someone like Hammond if he were Tory leader could soften
Your seat argument also does not hold as from 1987 to 1992 Kinnock squeezed about 4% from the SDP/LDs and Corbyn has already squeezed the LDs as much as he can
So on voteshare provided the Tories avoid any further significant movement to Labour they could remain largest party at the next general election or even get a very small majority
Why go on about vote share? You can lose dozens of seats on exactly the same vote share or gain dozens. We've explicitly and deliberately go a non-proportional system, where vote share is rather decoupled from seat share. Given that different demographics are swinging differently, as are regions and local areas, you could gain a couple of percent and still face a Labour majority - you do know that, right? 42%, 43%, 44% - they don't mean "get this score and win". Have just 100,000 voters out of 40,000,000 change their mind (less than a quarter of one percent) in the right places, and we end up with Lab 337, Con 247, SNP 21, LD 21, Plaid 2; a Lab majority of 24 (and effective majority of >30).
You could even have that happen on on overarching Lab-to-Con swing if those changing sides are mainly in Con or Lab safe seats.
That would have consequences as a number of betting shop providers have made it clear without the FOBTs, their High Street operations would be unviable. If in a High Street of 12-14 shops , half went suddenly it would be obvious.
There are High Streets with 12-14 bookies on them ???
One thing which has surprised me is that the number of betting shops has increased - I would have thought that with internet betting they would have fallen.
Though, personally, I would be quite happy to see fewer betting shops and likewise fewer coffee shops, pound shops and general cheap tat shops. With the property thus freed up redeveloped for residential use.
They are not betting shops, they are FOBT shops. There is a limit of four FOBT machines (fruit machines on steroids) per shop, which is why the bookies open more shops. If they were allowed eight machines in a shop, they'd not need two branches within 50 yards of each other. That is also why they will close if FOBTs are restricted. Betting has almost nothing to do with it.
Question for those who've had chance to study the Con-DUP deal, which I haven't. Indeed, I don't know if it's even available.
Does it cover Brexit at all? If so, to what extent?
Confidence and Supply doesn't explicitly include amendments to the Queens Speech but the DUP voted down the amendment anyway. Now, you could argue that that comes under 'supply' as had it passed, it would have produced an unfunded commitment but that's at least arguable. It will be interesting to watch just how far the scope of the agreement runs.
Crucially, and following on from last night's implied 'supply aspect', to what extent does Brexit count as 'confidence'? On a narrow basis, nothing counts as 'confidence' these days bar an explicity VoNC: not a Queens Speech, not a Budget (though that would obviously be 'supply'). But Brexit is so intrinsic to this government's purpose that a major defeat couldn't just be swept under the carpet; it would be a resignation matter i.e. a Confidence one.
The issue about Brexit and ID cards isn't whether ID cards are bad. It's whether EU citizens resident in the UK should be treated in a more intrusive and and apparently second class way compared with UK citizens. Many of whom will have been living perfectly happily in the UK for twenty years or more. You might say, why not? But that's what the argument is about.
Which brings me to the UK's proposal on citizen rights. It's a serious and workable proposal. The first serious and workable proposal on anything to do with Brexit from either the Leave campaign or the UK government incidentally. It isn't however the generous proposal it is described as. It doesn't offer EU citizens rights after Brexit that are similar either to UK citizen rights or what they had while the UK was a member of the EU. It falls short of what the EU is proposing. More here from an immigration lawyer: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/analysis-what-is-the-uk-proposing-for-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-eu-citizens-in-the-eu/
Obviously it is an ID card. It is an ID card for people who are not British but are being welcomed here and given the use of our NHS, benefits system and other public services free of charge.
Of course we are doing this because the vast majority of these people are contributors to our society not because we are nice but even so we still need to distinguish between those entitled and those not. Is there something wrong with that? Are Europeans, who pretty much all have such documents in their own countries really going to get wound up about this?
The EU position seems to be that EU citizens should have identical rights in the UK after the UK has left the EU. It is a somewhat odd proposition if you think about it.
- no ID checks once you are inside.
I carry a Court pass which allows me through security in Courts without my bags being searched and into prisons (and more importantly out again). Would I have fewer rights if I had to carry an ID card? Struggle to see it.
I guess as years go by more and more people have the photo driving license, so yes it has probably made the card a bit redundant - but a lot of people still don't have the photo ones. My mother only just got a photo one after years of us mocking her papyrus elder scroll version.
It seems like one of those issues people treat as "the thin end of the wedge", when in reality it wouldn't change much at all.
As someone said below: the card might just be the tip of the iceberg: what matters more is not the design of the card, but the laws surrounding its usage (e.g. when it should be used) and the data backends.
A card, in itself, is pointless. The concerns should be with the system the card is within.
We don't need to carry a tax disc or an MOT certificate any more - it can be checked online.
Before long fingerprints, face recognition or retina scan will be all we need to carry for our identity to be checked against a central file.
Question for those who've had chance to study the Con-DUP deal, which I haven't. Indeed, I don't know if it's even available.
Does it cover Brexit at all? If so, to what extent?
Confidence and Supply doesn't explicitly include amendments to the Queens Speech but the DUP voted down the amendment anyway. Now, you could argue that that comes under 'supply' as had it passed, it would have produced an unfunded commitment but that's at least arguable. It will be interesting to watch just how far the scope of the agreement runs.
Crucially, and following on from last night's implied 'supply aspect', to what extent does Brexit count as 'confidence'? On a narrow basis, nothing counts as 'confidence' these days bar an explicity VoNC: not a Queens Speech, not a Budget (though that would obviously be 'supply'). But Brexit is so intrinsic to this government's purpose that a major defeat couldn't just be swept under the carpet; it would be a resignation matter i.e. a Confidence one.
"In exchange, the DUP’s 10 MPs will support confidence motions, the Queen’s Speech, the budget and finance bills, Brexit legislation and national security legislation. Votes on other matters will be dealt with on a “case by case basis”.
Comments
In terms of privacy, we already voluntarily tell various internet firms what we watch and read, retailers and bankers know what we buy, from which they can infer our lifestyles and families. We voluntarily carry round tracking devices in the form of mobile phones, and some people plant bugs in their own houses -- because those voice-controlled devices are listening all the time.
So it is not just privacy for most people, but the intrusive state.
Also, neither mine nor my wife's are equivalent to ID cards because they don't have a photo (they are the pink type). And our two sons (mid 20s) don't have driving licenses because they don't drive. Based on this completely random sample of 4, there must be lots of people who don't have driving licenses which could serve as ID cards.
Of the other 3 Ireland is rolling out one via its new public services card. What is wrong with having a card to prove entitlement to access free public services - maybe the NHS should require them too. It might assist in stopping abuses of the system and ensure only those eligible for free services get them.
If it's not a problem for EU nationals bar Danes in their own country - why should it be an issue for them here.
A card, in itself, is pointless. The concerns should be with the system the card is within.
There's no need for ID cards.
Mr. Eagles, fair enough. Don't pay income tax this year and see how you get on.
If anyone tries to give me an ID card, I will burn it and send the ashes back to the sender.
You can lose dozens of seats on exactly the same vote share or gain dozens.
We've explicitly and deliberately go a non-proportional system, where vote share is rather decoupled from seat share.
Given that different demographics are swinging differently, as are regions and local areas, you could gain a couple of percent and still face a Labour majority - you do know that, right?
42%, 43%, 44% - they don't mean "get this score and win".
Have just 100,000 voters out of 40,000,000 change their mind (less than a quarter of one percent) in the right places, and we end up with Lab 337, Con 247, SNP 21, LD 21, Plaid 2; a Lab majority of 24 (and effective majority of >30).
You could even have that happen on on overarching Lab-to-Con swing if those changing sides are mainly in Con or Lab safe seats.
NEW THREAD
Does it cover Brexit at all? If so, to what extent?
Confidence and Supply doesn't explicitly include amendments to the Queens Speech but the DUP voted down the amendment anyway. Now, you could argue that that comes under 'supply' as had it passed, it would have produced an unfunded commitment but that's at least arguable. It will be interesting to watch just how far the scope of the agreement runs.
Crucially, and following on from last night's implied 'supply aspect', to what extent does Brexit count as 'confidence'? On a narrow basis, nothing counts as 'confidence' these days bar an explicity VoNC: not a Queens Speech, not a Budget (though that would obviously be 'supply'). But Brexit is so intrinsic to this government's purpose that a major defeat couldn't just be swept under the carpet; it would be a resignation matter i.e. a Confidence one.
Which brings me to the UK's proposal on citizen rights. It's a serious and workable proposal. The first serious and workable proposal on anything to do with Brexit from either the Leave campaign or the UK government incidentally. It isn't however the generous proposal it is described as. It doesn't offer EU citizens rights after Brexit that are similar either to UK citizen rights or what they had while the UK was a member of the EU. It falls short of what the EU is proposing. More here from an immigration lawyer: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/analysis-what-is-the-uk-proposing-for-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-eu-citizens-in-the-eu/
Before long fingerprints, face recognition or retina scan will be all we need to carry for our identity to be checked against a central file. My mother always admonished me that 'she' is a female cat - use her name.
https://www.ft.com/content/d79f3904-5a44-11e7-b553-e2df1b0c3220