To me, the Customs Union is far more important than the single market.
The two really need to come as a pair. You can't have a true frictionless border unless there is a shared legal space on both sides.
The 'Norway option' doesn't help with renegotiating deals with third countries and wouldn't even give us automatic access to any of EFTA's deals with third countries.
As an example, the EFTA agreement with South Korea requires South Korea's permission before it would apply to an acceding state. Maybe South Korea wouldn't have a problem with this, but why should EFTA risk having to renegotiate many of its agreements to deal with the fact that a much larger economy was now joining it?
If we want the 'Norway option' it's not something we can choose at the last minute as an easy fix.
To me, the Customs Union is far more important than the single market.
Interesting.
Why do you think Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein think the opposite?
Because Brexiters wants us out of the EU. A Customs Union arrangement [ note: not "the" ] will avoid a whole amazonion paperwork pile or hard disk mountain [ you take your pick ].
Brexiters can still have their much cherished "border controls". Let's face it, that is what the vote was for. The UK , however, cannot enter into trade deals in those topics covered by the customs union but will be free to enter into trade arrangements for any other subject. For example, financial instruments.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
!
I remember being in a meeting with a senior board member of a pension company (also a respected actuary), and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Maybe a touch too optimistic. But the numbers living beyond 100 is increasing rapidly.
But there are problems with this too ! My father lived until the age of 90. His last 10 years were effectively a write-off. The final 2/3 years were like a 1 year old baby. Everything had to be done for him. He could not recognise no one apart from my mother who herself was only 5 years younger than him.
As we found in the last 100 years, people were expected to live until the age of 45. As nutrition and medicines improved, people started living longer. But teaching the body to last longer takes many generations of evolution.
First, your eyesight begins to go. Alright, glasses. Then hearing goes. Hearing aid. Hips, knees etc. begins to go.
Now the brain. Dementia, Alzheimer's .... We will push back those boundaries also. But we are living longer, quicker than our bodies can adapt to.
At the time of the meeting, I was genuinely excited at the prospect, then a few years later I became a full-time carer for my father at home. It was a matter of honour, I had visited several care homes with my mother to see her old friends. The stench of the stale urine, even in the supposedly best (expensive) homes still lingers in my memory, the numbers of Filipino carers working hard for paltry pay, etc., meant that there was no way that I could condemn a loved one (or my worst enemy) to an existence in one. So, over a period of 2 years, I watched him deteriorate, from being mentally competent into someone who had forgotten how to speak, walk, control his bladder or bowels, and I was never sure if he knew where he was or me. Thankfully, I had 4 visits a day from care nurses, who kept him clean, dressed him helped feed him, changed the bags from his catheter. These care nurses came from a lot of different countries, (the weirdest being Equador) , as well as nearly every country in the EU
What a bloody stupid idea. If I am willing to conduct a suicide terrorist attack I am not exactly worry about "car-jacking" a van or a lorry, nor does it take a criminal mastermind to do so.
Why are these women so anxious to keep their pensions at 60?
Whole point is they had planned their lives on retiring at 60 and had the rug pulled from under them at very short notice and with no time to mitigate the sudden change.
The law was changed 22 years ago and that's "short notice"?
!
I remember being in a meeting.... and he said in all seriousness, that the first person to live until they were 150 has already been born.....
Maybe a touch too optimistic. But the numbers living beyond 100 is increasing rapidly.
But there are problems with this too ! My father lived until the age of 90. His last 10 years were effectively a write-off. The final 2/3 years were like a 1 year old baby. Everything had to be done for him. He could not recognise no one apart from my mother who herself was only 5 years younger than him.
As we found in the last 100 years, people were expected to live until the age of 45. As nutrition and medicines improved, people started living longer. But teaching the body to last longer takes many generations of evolution.
First, your eyesight begins to go. Alright, glasses. Then hearing goes. Hearing aid. Hips, knees etc. begins to go.
Now the brain. Dementia, Alzheimer's .... We will push back those boundaries also. But we are living longer, quicker than our bodies can adapt to.
At the time of the meeting, I was genuinely excited at the prospect, then a few years later I became a full-time carer for my father at home. It was a matter of honour, I had visited several care homes with my mother to see her old friends. The stench of the stale urine, even in the supposedly best (expensive) homes still lingers in my memory, the numbers of Filipino carers working hard for paltry pay, etc., meant that there was no way that I could condemn a loved one (or my worst enemy) to an existence in one. So, over a period of 2 years, I watched him deteriorate, from being mentally competent into someone who had forgotten how to speak, walk, control his bladder or bowels, and I was never sure if he knew where he was or me. Thankfully, I had 4 visits a day from care nurses, who kept him clean, dressed him helped feed him, changed the bags from his catheter. These care nurses came from a lot of different countries, (the weirdest being Equador) , as well as nearly every country in the EU
And I really dread what lies ahead of me...
Sadly, that is what lies ahead of us. Living longer is fine as long as you know what you are living for.
It is said of us all that ignorance of the law is no defence (in the commission of a crime). Similarly, ignorance of key issues in an academic promulgating exit scenarios is no excuse for getting it wrong. Minford should be applying academic rigour to his work, in which event he would know that the WTO option was a non-starter.
His failure to do his job properly is more than just mere error. It is wilful stupidity.
I could. Or I could stick with the charities I am currently involved with and I could carry on donating to food banks.
Or you could vote for a government that doesn't leave welfare to charity.
Do you think that there will ever be a system where *some* welfare will not need to be left to charity? Where the state is so comprehensive at detecting and dealing with problems in a timely manner that there is no welfare work for charities?
Because I don't. I'm not defending the status quo; just saying that the idea that charities will never have a place wrt welfare seems a tad optimistic. They'll often be able to react in a much quicker and effective manner than the state.
In fact, it might even lead the other way. If charities providing welfare are seen as a sign the system is not working, the 'easy' answer is to close down the charities. The Soviet Union was now known for having a brilliant level of equality, and yet it also frowned upon charities. The people who suffered were not the ideologues in charge, but the poor.
IMO charities are for things like cats and overseas projects . The optional things in life. Not solving major domestic economic failures.
Sometimes a small charity can do things much better than the state, food banks are a great example.
They prefer to fund a chum , who runs the charity and makes plenty out of it.
I see you have to rely on 1 spurious claim from 18 months ago. Can you post teh subsequent proof that anything was amiss and it was not just Tory lies. Find me any material supporting your pathetic article. Surely they must have done follow ups when she was convicted or proven to have done something wrong. I await with bated breath , LOL.
.
LOL, so it doesn’t count in your mind because it’s an old story?
The charity had £25k in income, yet spent only £700 on what the money was supposed to have been raised for.
No proof ever published that it was anything or than made up smears from usual Tory sources. Never seen again and not any proof whatsoever.One smearing unproven article in Jan 2016 and then silence.
There are always those who have opposing views but if the Autumn report gets traction objections will be hard to justify
Let me help you again:
"Unilaterally scrapping our tariffs without achieving similar reductions in the tariff rates of other countries would see Britain swamped with imports, leaving our manufacturers and farmers unable to compete," said Labour MP Alison McGovern, a supporter of the cross-party group Open Britain, which is campaigning against a hard Brexit.
"The levels of bankruptcy and unemployment, especially in industry and agriculture, would sky-rocket.
"This is a project of economic suicide, not prosperity. No responsible government would touch this report with a barge pole as a source of ideas for our future trade policy."
There are always those who have opposing views but if the Autumn report gets traction objections will be hard to justify
Let me help you again:
"Unilaterally scrapping our tariffs without achieving similar reductions in the tariff rates of other countries would see Britain swamped with imports, leaving our manufacturers and farmers unable to compete," said Labour MP Alison McGovern, a supporter of the cross-party group Open Britain, which is campaigning against a hard Brexit.
"The levels of bankruptcy and unemployment, especially in industry and agriculture, would sky-rocket.
"This is a project of economic suicide, not prosperity. No responsible government would touch this report with a barge pole as a source of ideas for our future trade policy."
Traction ? More like a tractor to bulldoze jobs.
And you are using Alison McGovern who is campaigning against a hard Brexit as an independent observer !!!
There are always those who have opposing views but if the Autumn report gets traction objections will be hard to justify
Let me help you again:
"Unilaterally scrapping our tariffs without achieving similar reductions in the tariff rates of other countries would see Britain swamped with imports, leaving our manufacturers and farmers unable to compete," said Labour MP Alison McGovern, a supporter of the cross-party group Open Britain, which is campaigning against a hard Brexit.
"The levels of bankruptcy and unemployment, especially in industry and agriculture, would sky-rocket.
"This is a project of economic suicide, not prosperity. No responsible government would touch this report with a barge pole as a source of ideas for our future trade policy."
Traction ? More like a tractor to bulldoze jobs.
And you are using Alison McGovern who is campaigning against a hard Brexit as an independent observer !!!
Well, cheap food at any price did for Farming in the 19th and perhaps in the early 20th Centuries.
These machines have created a community of interest between the shareholders of the gambling companies, the treasury and criminals laundering money. On the other side, thousands of lives have been destroyed through problem gambling.
These machines have created a community of interest between the shareholders of the gambling companies, the treasury and criminals laundering money. On the other side, thousands of lives have been destroyed through problem gambling.
Why is this difficult?
If it is not possible to ban the whole thing , then it should be licensed and the users themselves should hold licences to indulge. I think the old chestnut "internet" will be used in defence.
There are always those who have opposing views but if the Autumn report gets traction objections will be hard to justify
Let me help you again:
"Unilaterally scrapping our tariffs without achieving similar reductions in the tariff rates of other countries would see Britain swamped with imports, leaving our manufacturers and farmers unable to compete," said Labour MP Alison McGovern, a supporter of the cross-party group Open Britain, which is campaigning against a hard Brexit.
"The levels of bankruptcy and unemployment, especially in industry and agriculture, would sky-rocket.
"This is a project of economic suicide, not prosperity. No responsible government would touch this report with a barge pole as a source of ideas for our future trade policy."
Traction ? More like a tractor to bulldoze jobs.
And you are using Alison McGovern who is campaigning against a hard Brexit as an independent observer !!!
Is it beyond your capability of understanding that, in the immediate future, low or zero tariffs would lose jobs in farms and factories due to cheap imports ? Maybe, in your mind, a nirvana situation will emerge in due course. Yes, the "due course" could be ten years in the making for the economy to re-adjust. Who will look after those who lose their jobs for the UK to be "independent" ?
These machines have created a community of interest between the shareholders of the gambling companies, the treasury and criminals laundering money. On the other side, thousands of lives have been destroyed through problem gambling.
Why is this difficult?
If it is not possible to ban the whole thing , then it should be licensed and the users themselves should hold licences to indulge. I think the old chestnut "internet" will be used in defence.
I don't see why it would be hard to ban them. Alternatives could include restricting betting shop opening hours, imposing a maximum stake/time played per day, allowing only one machine per ward...
The internet is still there, but I think it's less problematic psychologically. Seeing the money tumbling out of the machine presses lots of buttons in the brain.
These machines have created a community of interest between the shareholders of the gambling companies, the treasury and criminals laundering money. On the other side, thousands of lives have been destroyed through problem gambling.
Why is this difficult?
If it is not possible to ban the whole thing , then it should be licensed and the users themselves should hold licences to indulge. I think the old chestnut "internet" will be used in defence.
I don't see why it would be hard to ban them. Alternatives could include restricting betting shop opening hours, imposing a maximum stake/time played per day, allowing only one machine per ward...
The internet is still there, but I think it's less problematic psychologically. Seeing the money tumbling out of the machine presses lots of buttons in the brain.
I’d take a guess that the government’s tax revenues from the machines are somewhat outweighed by the tax not paid on the dodgy cash ‘washed’ through them. But they don’t see the tax they’re not getting and can’t quantify it.
This issue would be a good use of a Private Members’ Bill, or even a motion at the Conservative party conference to give the government a nudge in the right direction.
If they can’t be banned outright then they need stake limits of a Pound or two, and make them accept coins only like fruit machines.
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
Well that surely works both ways... Who needs experts? (unless they agree with you of course!)
Anyway that article can't possibly on the BBC becasue we all know the BBC is entirely anti-Brexit. (It was actually top story on the Beeb website when I looked this morning.)
Professor Minford's actual report is of course not out until the autumn - he's obviously just trying to drum up some pre-publicity and other experts are falling over themselves to trash it before they've seen it. When it does come out it will probably sink without trace ironically, because there will be real news to report on. Bet he wishes he'd actually got on and written it a bit sooner!
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
Prof Minford v Vicky Pryce live on Sky
A points victory to Pryce?
Minford has the points that seem plausible - Vicky Pryce is part of the EU establishment
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
The same expert who said Brexit would eliminate UK manufacturing
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
The same expert who said Brexit would eliminate UK manufacturing
That's the guy you are cheering now.
Experts, eh?
Indeed. Have I ever backed subsidising industries or demanded protectionism? If Nissan only exists due to subsidies it should go, if it can survive without then great all the better. Like Minford or New Zealand for agriculture etc I believe in untrammeled free trade.
You seem to believe in treating experts like idols unless you don't agree with them. Funny that.
he offered to direct his agents to “cancel their work on Aristocrat slots to stop compromising your trademark” as well as “help your developers eliminate all design flaws.” He did not mention the fee he expected to be paid for these services, though he did note that he wished “to extract maximum money from my developments.”
Alex also insinuated that Aristocrat might face grave consequences if it chose to ignore him. “The matter could become worse if technical details would be available for your competitors or will be shared via internet or media,” he warned.
Or in other words...stick your hands up punk, this is a shake down...
he offered to direct his agents to “cancel their work on Aristocrat slots to stop compromising your trademark” as well as “help your developers eliminate all design flaws.” He did not mention the fee he expected to be paid for these services, though he did note that he wished “to extract maximum money from my developments.”
Alex also insinuated that Aristocrat might face grave consequences if it chose to ignore him. “The matter could become worse if technical details would be available for your competitors or will be shared via internet or media,” he warned.
Or in other words...stick your hands up punk, this is a shake down...
I didn't say that it was a moral ally. I'm struggling to feel much sympathy for the creators and operators of these machines, mind.
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
The same expert who said Brexit would eliminate UK manufacturing
That's the guy you are cheering now.
Experts, eh?
We all commit errors of logic from time to time on an ad hoc basis; it is less usual to find someone elevating one particular error (in your case, the appeal to authority) to an overarching principle. It doesn't work, because for each and every expert there is usually an equal and opposite counter-expert. Also, not everyone who says he is an expert, is an expert, and the fact that someone says something on twitter rather than via another medium does not create a presumption of expertise. All points nicely illustrated by your expert du jour David Allen Green, who twatted himself to a frazzle expertly predicting that the High Court would allow Corbyn to be kept off the ballot in the Lab leadership contest. At least I think he did; his blog pieces about it have mysteriously been replaced by the 404 error page.
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
The same expert who said Brexit would eliminate UK manufacturing
That's the guy you are cheering now.
Experts, eh?
He has clarified that just now on Sky - he said low productivity manufacturing would suffer but high skill maufacturing would thrive
Time to return to his ivory tower. His Britain Alone strategy will, he admits himself, eliminate UK manufacturing. Politically impossible.
Takes no account whatsoever of why people voted to leave in the first place.
Actually that's not what he says it is a totally ignorant misreading of what he says. He says that some companies would go, which is the same as it always has been. When was the last time you saw a British Leyland plant?
But the demise of British Leyland didn't mark the despise of manufacturing in the UK or even car manufacturing in the UK. We produce more cars today as a nation than we did when Leyland was around.
Now that we've had a UK general election, is there any reason why the next Scottish Parliament election shouldn't be held in 2020?
If there's a general election in 2020 in the first months of 2020 as well, yes.
Otherwise, no.
I think that's how the Act works, although if I'm right it must have been written by a moron.
What happens if a General Election is called for May 2021? Would the Scottish election be put back a year?
That's what we couldn't know and that's why the person who wrote that clause is a moron.
However I think it may apply only to scheduled elections. So 2022 would be the clash rather than 2020, even though the latter date is more plausible for an election.
Edit - but that wouldn't matttr as the next SP elections will be scheduled for 2020, so there shouldn't be elections for it in 2021.
Nope the next SP elections are scheduled for 2021. The bill to extend the SP to 2021 already received royal assent and thus became law before the 2017 election was called.
That probably implies that any UK General Election in 2021 will not be held in May.
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
The same expert who said Brexit would eliminate UK manufacturing
That's the guy you are cheering now.
Experts, eh?
He has clarified that just now on Sky - he said low productivity manufacturing would suffer but high skill maufacturing would thrive
the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco,
But they don't need to sell them to us
Why do the Germans not need to sell cars to us? Germany exports more cars to the UK than anywhere else. Germany sells about 14% of all the passenger cars it makes domestically to the UK, a little over one in seven. (That makes up about 18% of the passenger cars it exports, a little under one in five). One in five of its production is a massive issue for Audi, Mercedes and BMW.
Whereas if there are tariffs then consumers here can choose to buy from here and elsewhere in the world for better value, especially if trade deals were in place.
Now that we've had a UK general election, is there any reason why the next Scottish Parliament election shouldn't be held in 2020?
If there's a general election in 2020 in the first months of 2020 as well, yes.
Otherwise, no.
I think that's how the Act works, although if I'm right it must have been written by a moron.
What happens if a General Election is called for May 2021? Would the Scottish election be put back a year?
That's what we couldn't know and that's why the person who wrote that clause is a moron.
However I think it may apply only to scheduled elections. So 2022 would be the clash rather than 2020, even though the latter date is more plausible for an election.
Edit - but that wouldn't matttr as the next SP elections will be scheduled for 2020, so there shouldn't be elections for it in 2021.
Nope the next SP elections are scheduled for 2021. The bill to extend the SP to 2021 already received royal assent and thus became law before the 2017 election was called.
That probably implies that any UK General Election in 2021 will not be held in May.
That's not in the hands of the Scottish Parliament to determine. It probably suits both SCON and SLAB to hold a UKGE on May 2021. SNP would likely be subjected to an almighty squeeze.
May suit SLAB more though, in which case it likely wouldn't happen.
he offered to direct his agents to “cancel their work on Aristocrat slots to stop compromising your trademark” as well as “help your developers eliminate all design flaws.” He did not mention the fee he expected to be paid for these services, though he did note that he wished “to extract maximum money from my developments.”
Alex also insinuated that Aristocrat might face grave consequences if it chose to ignore him. “The matter could become worse if technical details would be available for your competitors or will be shared via internet or media,” he warned.
Or in other words...stick your hands up punk, this is a shake down...
Moral payback for all the times the bookies ban PB sharps (not a category which includes me) or limit them to 13p stakes, and all the idiots they bankrupt, and therefore very difficult to get upset about.
he offered to direct his agents to “cancel their work on Aristocrat slots to stop compromising your trademark” as well as “help your developers eliminate all design flaws.” He did not mention the fee he expected to be paid for these services, though he did note that he wished “to extract maximum money from my developments.”
Alex also insinuated that Aristocrat might face grave consequences if it chose to ignore him. “The matter could become worse if technical details would be available for your competitors or will be shared via internet or media,” he warned.
Or in other words...stick your hands up punk, this is a shake down...
Moral payback for all the times the bookies ban PB sharps (not a category which includes me) or limit them to 13p stakes, and all the idiots they bankrupt, and therefore very difficult to get upset about.
I have to say I am glad I transitioned away from professional gambling before this kind of aggressive restrictions were as common place.
Time to return to his ivory tower. His Britain Alone strategy will, he admits himself, eliminate UK manufacturing. Politically impossible.
Takes no account whatsoever of why people voted to leave in the first place.
Actually that's not what he says it is a totally ignorant misreading of what he says. He says that some companies would go, which is the same as it always has been. When was the last time you saw a British Leyland plant?
But the demise of British Leyland didn't mark the despise of manufacturing in the UK or even car manufacturing in the UK. We produce more cars today as a nation than we did when Leyland was around.
By getting foreign car manufacturers to invest here because we are a bridge into the EU.
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
Prof Minford v Vicky Pryce live on Sky
A points victory to Pryce?
Maybe as a convicted criminal, she would be prepared to share the points?
It's very apparent that four or five specific non-PBers seem to get regularly retweeted on this site. Bit they all seem to be complete nobodies.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Ian Dunt is the 'go to' remainer for the broadcast media.
The article is number 3 on the BBC most read site
Yes the article is an article about a report written by Professor Patrick Minford, Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff University and the Institute for Economic Affairs.
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
Prof Minford v Vicky Pryce live on Sky
A points victory to Pryce?
Maybe as a convicted criminal, she would be prepared to share the points?
Time to return to his ivory tower. His Britain Alone strategy will, he admits himself, eliminate UK manufacturing. Politically impossible.
Takes no account whatsoever of why people voted to leave in the first place.
Actually that's not what he says it is a totally ignorant misreading of what he says. He says that some companies would go, which is the same as it always has been. When was the last time you saw a British Leyland plant?
But the demise of British Leyland didn't mark the despise of manufacturing in the UK or even car manufacturing in the UK. We produce more cars today as a nation than we did when Leyland was around.
By getting foreign car manufacturers to invest here because we are a bridge into the EU.
Funny, we were in the European Community for over a decade and a half before the death of British Leyland.
We did so by deregulating our economy and making ourselves more competitive. Something that we can do more of if we follow Minford's advice.
the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco,
But they don't need to sell them to us
Why do the Germans not need to sell cars to us? Germany exports more cars to the UK than anywhere else. Germany sells about 14% of all the passenger cars it makes domestically to the UK, a little over one in seven. (That makes up about 18% of the passenger cars it exports, a little under one in five). One in five of its production is a massive issue for Audi, Mercedes and BMW.
Whereas if there are tariffs then consumers here can choose to buy from here and elsewhere in the world for better value, especially if trade deals were in place.
14% of its production may come to the UK but they know that wouldn't stop with tariffs; it might tak a dent but say their UK sales dropped by 20% - that's just 3% of their production, they'd manage.
These machines have created a community of interest between the shareholders of the gambling companies, the treasury and criminals laundering money. On the other side, thousands of lives have been destroyed through problem gambling.
Why is this difficult?
If it is not possible to ban the whole thing , then it should be licensed and the users themselves should hold licences to indulge. I think the old chestnut "internet" will be used in defence.
I don't see why it would be hard to ban them. Alternatives could include restricting betting shop opening hours, imposing a maximum stake/time played per day, allowing only one machine per ward...
The internet is still there, but I think it's less problematic psychologically. Seeing the money tumbling out of the machine presses lots of buttons in the brain.
Letter I sent to Carswell/UKIP policy team in 2014 pt1
"A problem that particularly affects the working class is the growing number of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. I have worked in the bookmaking industry for nearly twenty years, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. The existence of the betting exchanges, namely Betfair, has meant that the bookie vs punter battle is all but over. Bookmakers are unable to compete with the margins that the exchanges bet to, but what they lose in custom they make up for in wages. As the exchanges are the ultimate guide to the betting market, they no longer have to employ as many odds compilers, they just copy the exchange and add a bit of margin. If the bookmaker is out of line with the exchanges, and punters try to take the bookie price, the bookie stops them betting, or limits them to pennies. To all intents and purposes the high St bookie should be dead. They don't take many bets, and they don't let people bet much.
But they are kept afloat by the FOBTs. These are basically Fruit Machines on crack cocaine. There is no edge for the punter as the machines are programmed to win a certain percentage. It is not about skill, they cannot be beaten. Bookmakers now have as many of these machines as possible in betting shops, and staff I have spoken to have told me they are instructed to teach punters how to play them, and stay open as long as possible even when there is barely any sport to bet on. Labour MP Tom Watson has done a great deal of work on the problems of FOBTs. They are a social menace, causing misery to many who cant afford to lose the money they are, and the anger on the part of the player when they lose is often also distressing for the employee, who is usually working alone late at night. The bookmakers that are applying to open shops in High Streets in poor areas (Newham is a particular example) are only doing so in order to pile these machines into them.
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted. I predict that Bookmakers such as Ladbrokes, Coral and William Hill would baulk at this, but at the moment they are no more than fences for FOBTs anyway. They wont take bets off people who have any clue about betting, but are happy to let the poorest in society lose their wages in a machine which it is impossible to beat. Strange as it may sound, the name Ladbrokes/Hills/Corals adds a cloak of respectability to the mugging that takes place inside their shops. Attaching their name to an amusement arcade would (a) discourage them from applying as it would damage their brand, and (b) give the authorities the chance to deny permission for the arcade. Either would be a bonus for the man in the street.
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
rethink gambling @rethinkgambling Dec 15 .@Coral You took this from a known #gambling #addict on Friday. Anything to say to his children this Christmas? pic.twitter.com/5JIfztXZrL
I have written a couple of articles on this deception here
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up.
If we press this policy I feel it will be both a vote winner and enhance UKIPs reputation as the party that has the interests of the working class at heart"
Time to return to his ivory tower. His Britain Alone strategy will, he admits himself, eliminate UK manufacturing. Politically impossible.
Takes no account whatsoever of why people voted to leave in the first place.
Actually that's not what he says it is a totally ignorant misreading of what he says. He says that some companies would go, which is the same as it always has been. When was the last time you saw a British Leyland plant?
But the demise of British Leyland didn't mark the despise of manufacturing in the UK or even car manufacturing in the UK. We produce more cars today as a nation than we did when Leyland was around.
By getting foreign car manufacturers to invest here because we are a bridge into the EU.
Funny, we were in the European Community for over a decade and a half before the death of British Leyland.
We did so by deregulating our economy and making ourselves more competitive. Something that we can do more of if we follow Minford's advice.
More deregulation? That sounds like a recipe for success (oh, except banks of course EDIT: and the betting industry - having just read isam's excellent posts)
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted. I predict that Bookmakers such as Ladbrokes, Coral and William Hill would baulk at this, but at the moment they are no more than fences for FOBTs anyway. They wont take bets off people who have any clue about betting, but are happy to let the poorest in society lose their wages in a machine which it is impossible to beat. Strange as it may sound, the name Ladbrokes/Hills/Corals adds a cloak of respectability to the mugging that takes place inside their shops. Attaching their name to an amusement arcade would (a) discourage them from applying as it would damage their brand, and (b) give the authorities the chance to deny permission for the arcade. Either would be a bonus for the man in the street.
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
rethink gambling @rethinkgambling Dec 15 .@Coral You took this from a known #gambling #addict on Friday. Anything to say to his children this Christmas? pic.twitter.com/5JIfztXZrL
I have written a couple of articles on this deception here
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up.
If we press this policy I feel it will be both a vote winner and enhance UKIPs reputation as the party that has the interests of the working class at heart"
Very sensible and enlightening couple of posts isam, thanks.
Though why are you wasting your talents with UKIP ffs?
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
Try reading this instead of the British press and you'll feel more informed:
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
Try reading this instead of the British press and you'll feel more informed:
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
Try reading this instead of the British press and you'll feel more informed:
Does that explain how you sort out the Northern Ireland border before you know the terms of trade between the two parts of Ireland?
We've been through this before. The political requirements for the exit deal for Northern Ireland constrain the parameters of future trade arrangements, not vice versa.
If that means that Brexiteers need to come up with a differentiated solution for the territory of the UK in order to 'reap the benefits' of Brexit, that's up to them.
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
Try reading this instead of the British press and you'll feel more informed:
That’s a lot of words to say that they still want their court in charge after we leave, and that nothing else is discussed until we agree how much we have to bribe them to let us go.
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
Try reading this instead of the British press and you'll feel more informed:
Does that explain how you sort out the Northern Ireland border before you know the terms of trade between the two parts of Ireland?
The political requirements for the exit deal for Northern Ireland constrain the parameters of future trade arrangements, not vice versa.
Says who?
It is simply not possible to reach a near-final agreement on the border issue until we’ve begun to talk about how our broader future customs arrangement will work.”
I have to say I am glad I transitioned away from professional gambling before this kind of aggressive restrictions were as common place.
Hope you don't mind me asking.
How much, proportionately, of your income as a professional gambler came from "being clever" in the manner of systematically estimating probabilities in a field you could model so much better than the bookies that your edge beat their vig, and how much from merely "being observant" e.g. to the presence of arbitrage opportunities or spotting obvious, one-off mispricings?
I presume serious professional gamblers these days are mostly limited to the exchanges, and as Sam points out, bookies largely take their odds from the exchanges now anyway. Even when you were "being clever", was a lot of the profit really coming from checking the spread of odds available at different bookies (i.e. you could systematically hold an edge against the most generous odds available, but you would have had a small or no edge if you had gone for the mid-market odds) which disappeared once the spread of odds available to you narrowed?
It took him so many months to realise the EU negotiating strategy ? All our strategy was based on the premise that the German need to sell cars and the Italians need to sell Prosecco, therefore, everything will be alright in the end.
From what I can see from afar, it appears that the subtotal of the EU negotiating strategy so far has been to present a £60bn bill, change it to £100bn, then spend several hours a day briefing a few friendly journalists about how evil the British are.
Try reading this instead of the British press and you'll feel more informed:
Does that explain how you sort out the Northern Ireland border before you know the terms of trade between the two parts of Ireland?
The political requirements for the exit deal for Northern Ireland constrain the parameters of future trade arrangements, not vice versa.
Says who?
It is simply not possible to reach a near-final agreement on the border issue until we’ve begun to talk about how our broader future customs arrangement will work.”
And yet his department has just published a paper which says that the UK will uphold the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. If that can't be done if the UK leaves the customs union and the single market, or indeed the EU as a whole, then there is nothing to discuss as far as any future customs agreement goes.
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
rethink gambling @rethinkgambling Dec 15 .@Coral You took this from a known #gambling #addict on Friday. Anything to say to his children this Christmas? pic.twitter.com/5JIfztXZrL
I have written a couple of articles on this deception here
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up.
If we press this policy I feel it will be both a vote winner and enhance UKIPs reputation as the party that has the interests of the working class at heart"
Very sensible and enlightening couple of posts isam, thanks.
Though why are you wasting your talents with UKIP ffs?
Thank you.. I was in 2014, not now. Someone said (@Stodge ?) they should have thrown a big party at the end of June 2016 and retired the brand, & I think he was right.
As for my idea, any party is free to run with it. UKIP seemed keen, although Carswell didnt deign to reply. Conservatives would be best as they can actually implement it! Or maybe Sadiq Khan could start it off in London?? Newham is one of the worst affected areas
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted.
Wouldn't it be easier just to ban FOBTs or limit the amount of money people can put into them?
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
Interesting thread. As I recall the theory (roughly) was that devolution might strengthen the union by giving Scots the chance to make some of their own decisions and forcing them to stop moaning about Westminster.
I admit I doubted that when the independence campaign came so close. But maybe that was the high watermark in Scotland, and now the SNP have been given enough power to make themselves unpopular.
they have little to no powers, and it will become ever more apparent. Only an imbecile thinks being able to alter income tax is powers.
If we were to add up all the issues voters care about, who controls most of the issues?
NHS, Education, Housing, Planning, Environment etc... vs. immigration, most taxes, employment legislation, foreign affairs, energy, defence...
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
rethink gambling @rethinkgambling Dec 15 .@Coral You took this from a known #gambling #addict on Friday. Anything to say to his children this Christmas? pic.twitter.com/5JIfztXZrL
I have written a couple of articles on this deception here
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up.
If we press this policy I feel it will be both a vote winner and enhance UKIPs reputation as the party that has the interests of the working class at heart"
Very sensible and enlightening couple of posts isam, thanks.
Though why are you wasting your talents with UKIP ffs?
Thank you.. I was in 2014, not now. Someone said (@Stodge ?) they should have thrown a big party at the end of June 2016 and retired the brand, & I think he was right.
As for my idea, any party is free to run with it. UKIP seemed keen, although Carswell didnt deign to reply. Conservatives would be best as they can actually implement it! Or maybe Sadiq Khan could start it off in London?? Newham is one of the worst affected areas
It might be worth giving your work on this to your MP, see if they can pass it to DCMS or even raise a question at PMQs about it.
I have to say I am glad I transitioned away from professional gambling before this kind of aggressive restrictions were as common place.
Hope you don't mind me asking.
How much, proportionately, of your income as a professional gambler came from "being clever" in the manner of systematically estimating probabilities in a field you could model so much better than the bookies that your edge beat their vig, and how much from merely "being observant" e.g. to the presence of arbitrage opportunities or spotting obvious, one-off mispricings?
I presume serious professional gamblers these days are mostly limited to the exchanges, and as Sam points out, bookies largely take their odds from the exchanges now anyway. Even when you were "being clever", was a lot of the profit really coming from checking the spread of odds available at different bookies (i.e. you could systematically hold an edge against the most generous odds available, but you would have had a small or no edge if you had gone for the mid-market odds) which disappeared once the spread of odds available to you narrowed?
Although sports betting wasn't my primary "gambling" activity, when I was active in this area it was the early days of betting exchanges. As a result, generally many punters were pretty clueless about the working of "trading" in relation to betting. In addition, mathematical modelling of things like cricket totals was extremely poorly understood. Finally, there was far less automatic "trading" going on.
My mathematical models for things like cricket totals weren't massively sophisticated (if I could be bothered / had time it would be an interesting exercise to do given what I now know), but at that time there was nothing like CricViz stats or WASP being displayed on Sky, rather commentators still talking about generally 6 an over is good from here so that means x.
So in answer to your question, it was a combination of both. Inefficient / poorly informed markets and people trying to wager manually when I could get a machine to trade for me.
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted.
Wouldn't it be easier just to ban FOBTs or limit the amount of money people can put into them?
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
Maybe. Could they be banned though? I think it's more practical to make them difficult to access or separate them from skilled punting. Being in bookmakers gives the appearance they can be beaten by skill like normal betting
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted.
Wouldn't it be easier just to ban FOBTs or limit the amount of money people can put into them?
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
Maybe. Could they be banned though? I think it's more practical to make them difficult to access or separate them from skilled punting. Being in bookmakers gives the appearance they can be beaten by skill like normal betting
If the government wanted to ban them they easily could. They can change the law and set whatever restrictions they want in a law change. There's no human right to FOBTs. They could require them to only be inside casinos which have tougher regulations (and lower availability) rather than betting shops.
Understandably since alcohol is involved there is a restriction on fruit machines that the highest possible payout is £100 and maximum possible spin is £1. Even if you doubled or tripled that for bookmakers you could have terminals that could be used without being as voracious as FOBTs.
Although sports betting wasn't my primary "gambling" activity, when I was active in this area it was the early days of betting exchanges. As a result, generally many punters were pretty clueless about the working of "trading" in relation to betting. In addition, mathematical modelling of things like cricket totals was extremely poorly understood. Finally, there was far less automatic "trading" going on.
My mathematical models for things like cricket totals weren't massively sophisticated (if I could be bothered / had time it would be an interesting exercise to do given what I now know), but at that time there was nothing like CricViz stats or WASP being displayed on Sky, rather commentators still talking about generally 6 an over is good from here so that means x.
So in answer to your question, it was a combination of both. Inefficient / poorly informed markets and people trying to wager manually when I could get a machine to trade for me.
Cheers. Around the era they were first coming in, I did look briefly into the exchanges, and got the impression there was money to be made there, but because I had no gambling experience (something I had previously avoided as I saw it as a licence to lose money to the bookies) I decided I'd simply not know enough to be able to exploit the situation. Probably missed out on a chance there. Now there are so many big boys with massively sophisticated models (perhaps not really relevant to betting in the UK, but I think you've linked to this article on Starlizard before), yet they only seem to be able to profit from low-margin and high-value ... I dread to think how much capital an individual professional gambler would need to make a decent living.
Although sports betting wasn't my primary "gambling" activity, when I was active in this area it was the early days of betting exchanges. As a result, generally many punters were pretty clueless about the working of "trading" in relation to betting. In addition, mathematical modelling of things like cricket totals was extremely poorly understood. Finally, there was far less automatic "trading" going on.
My mathematical models for things like cricket totals weren't massively sophisticated (if I could be bothered / had time it would be an interesting exercise to do given what I now know), but at that time there was nothing like CricViz stats or WASP being displayed on Sky, rather commentators still talking about generally 6 an over is good from here so that means x.
So in answer to your question, it was a combination of both. Inefficient / poorly informed markets and people trying to wager manually when I could get a machine to trade for me.
Cheers. Around the era they were first coming in, I did look briefly into the exchanges, and got the impression there was money to be made there, but because I had no gambling experience (something I had previously avoided as I saw it as a licence to lose money to the bookies) I decided I'd simply not know enough to be able to exploit the situation. Probably missed out on a chance there. Now there are so many big boys with massively sophisticated models (perhaps not really relevant to betting in the UK, but I think you've linked to this article on Starlizard before), yet they only seem to be able to profit from low-margin and high-value ... I dread to think how much capital an individual professional gambler would need to make a decent living.
2-3 year ago the opportunity for the "retail gambler" was in DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) as again it was new, lots of people with very poor understanding and lots of the big boy gamblers for whatever reason didn't jump on the bandwagon.
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted.
Wouldn't it be easier just to ban FOBTs or limit the amount of money people can put into them?
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
Maybe. Could they be banned though? I think it's more practical to make them difficult to access or separate them from skilled punting. Being in bookmakers gives the appearance they can be beaten by skill like normal betting
If the government wanted to ban them they easily could. They can change the law and set whatever restrictions they want in a law change. There's no human right to FOBTs. They could require them to only be inside casinos which have tougher regulations (and lower availability) rather than betting shops.
Understandably since alcohol is involved there is a restriction on fruit machines that the highest possible payout is £100 and maximum possible spin is £1. Even if you doubled or tripled that for bookmakers you could have terminals that could be used without being as voracious as FOBTs.
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted.
Wouldn't it be easier just to ban FOBTs or limit the amount of money people can put into them?
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
Maybe. Could they be banned though? I think it's more practical to make them difficult to access or separate them from skilled punting. Being in bookmakers gives the appearance they can be beaten by skill like normal betting
If the government wanted to ban them they easily could. They can change the law and set whatever restrictions they want in a law change. There's no human right to FOBTs. They could require them to only be inside casinos which have tougher regulations (and lower availability) rather than betting shops.
Understandably since alcohol is involved there is a restriction on fruit machines that the highest possible payout is £100 and maximum possible spin is £1. Even if you doubled or tripled that for bookmakers you could have terminals that could be used without being as voracious as FOBTs.
Well my idea was to only allow them in Casinos!
Then I completely agree! I thought you wanted them in amusement arcades sorry.
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted.
Wouldn't it be easier just to ban FOBTs or limit the amount of money people can put into them?
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
Maybe. Could they be banned though? I think it's more practical to make them difficult to access or separate them from skilled punting. Being in bookmakers gives the appearance they can be beaten by skill like normal betting
If the government wanted to ban them they easily could. They can change the law and set whatever restrictions they want in a law change. There's no human right to FOBTs. They could require them to only be inside casinos which have tougher regulations (and lower availability) rather than betting shops.
Understandably since alcohol is involved there is a restriction on fruit machines that the highest possible payout is £100 and maximum possible spin is £1. Even if you doubled or tripled that for bookmakers you could have terminals that could be used without being as voracious as FOBTs.
Well my idea was to only allow them in Casinos!
Then I completely agree! I thought you wanted them in amusement arcades sorry.
Sorry, you are right, I did say amusement arcades.
Although sports betting wasn't my primary "gambling" activity, when I was active in this area it was the early days of betting exchanges. As a result, generally many punters were pretty clueless about the working of "trading" in relation to betting. In addition, mathematical modelling of things like cricket totals was extremely poorly understood. Finally, there was far less automatic "trading" going on.
My mathematical models for things like cricket totals weren't massively sophisticated (if I could be bothered / had time it would be an interesting exercise to do given what I now know), but at that time there was nothing like CricViz stats or WASP being displayed on Sky, rather commentators still talking about generally 6 an over is good from here so that means x.
So in answer to your question, it was a combination of both. Inefficient / poorly informed markets and people trying to wager manually when I could get a machine to trade for me.
Cheers. Around the era they were first coming in, I did look briefly into the exchanges, and got the impression there was money to be made there, but because I had no gambling experience (something I had previously avoided as I saw it as a licence to lose money to the bookies) I decided I'd simply not know enough to be able to exploit the situation. Probably missed out on a chance there. Now there are so many big boys with massively sophisticated models (perhaps not really relevant to betting in the UK, but I think you've linked to this article on Starlizard before), yet they only seem to be able to profit from low-margin and high-value ... I dread to think how much capital an individual professional gambler would need to make a decent living.
I probably have...there are a few companies in the UK doing this, SmartOdds being another. Tony Bloom is a very interesting guy.
Comments
The 'Norway option' doesn't help with renegotiating deals with third countries and wouldn't even give us automatic access to any of EFTA's deals with third countries.
As an example, the EFTA agreement with South Korea requires South Korea's permission before it would apply to an acceding state. Maybe South Korea wouldn't have a problem with this, but why should EFTA risk having to renegotiate many of its agreements to deal with the fact that a much larger economy was now joining it?
If we want the 'Norway option' it's not something we can choose at the last minute as an easy fix.
Machines where you can lose so much money so quickly belong in casinos, not on every high street.
Brexiters can still have their much cherished "border controls". Let's face it, that is what the vote was for. The UK , however, cannot enter into trade deals in those topics covered by the customs union but will be free to enter into trade arrangements for any other subject. For example, financial instruments.
Removing all trade tariffs and barriers would help generate an annual £135bn uplift to the UK economy, according to a group of pro-Brexit economists.
A "hard" Brexit is "economically much superior to soft" argues Prof Patrick Minford, lead author of a report from Economists for Free Trade.
He says eliminating tariffs, either within free trade deals or unilaterally, would deliver huge gains.
Not sure this fits the BBC or the remain agenda, but if true is a pretty big incentive to leave.
The full report to be published in the Autumn. It will be interesting the amount of coverage it receives from the BBC or Sky
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40972776
What a bloody stupid idea. If I am willing to conduct a suicide terrorist attack I am not exactly worry about "car-jacking" a van or a lorry, nor does it take a criminal mastermind to do so.
https://twitter.com/RichardAENorth/status/899216436253601792
It is said of us all that ignorance of the law is no defence (in the commission of a crime). Similarly, ignorance of key issues in an academic promulgating exit scenarios is no excuse for getting it wrong. Minford should be applying academic rigour to his work, in which event he would know that the WTO option was a non-starter.
His failure to do his job properly is more than just mere error. It is wilful stupidity.
"Unilaterally scrapping our tariffs without achieving similar reductions in the tariff rates of other countries would see Britain swamped with imports, leaving our manufacturers and farmers unable to compete," said Labour MP Alison McGovern, a supporter of the cross-party group Open Britain, which is campaigning against a hard Brexit.
"The levels of bankruptcy and unemployment, especially in industry and agriculture, would sky-rocket.
"This is a project of economic suicide, not prosperity. No responsible government would touch this report with a barge pole as a source of ideas for our future trade policy."
Traction ? More like a tractor to bulldoze jobs.
It is the real reason why I am laid back about Brexit. What will be will be.
Who is "Ian Dunt" and why do I care about him? And David Three Names? And the other one?
Why is this difficult?
https://twitter.com/Juergen_Maier/status/899160005034881024
You have had enough of experts, right?
The internet is still there, but I think it's less problematic psychologically. Seeing the money tumbling out of the machine presses lots of buttons in the brain.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/899226898290683904
This issue would be a good use of a Private Members’ Bill, or even a motion at the Conservative party conference to give the government a nudge in the right direction.
If they can’t be banned outright then they need stake limits of a Pound or two, and make them accept coins only like fruit machines.
https://www.wired.com/story/meet-alex-the-russian-casino-hacker-who-makes-millions-targeting-slot-machines/
Ian Dunt (who in another Tweet refers to Professor Minford as a "whimpering child") was the one quoted by Scott_n_Paste rather than Professor Minford. He is an axe-grinding journalist and not an economics professor.
Maybe "experts" like Professor Minford and the IEA aren't preferred by Ian Dunt and Scott_P. Good job they'd never have mocked rejecting the thoughts of experts before isn't it. Oh wait ...
Anyway that article can't possibly on the BBC becasue we all know the BBC is entirely anti-Brexit. (It was actually top story on the Beeb website when I looked this morning.)
Professor Minford's actual report is of course not out until the autumn - he's obviously just trying to drum up some pre-publicity and other experts are falling over themselves to trash it before they've seen it. When it does come out it will probably sink without trace ironically, because there will be real news to report on. Bet he wishes he'd actually got on and written it a bit sooner!
That's the guy you are cheering now.
Experts, eh?
You seem to believe in treating experts like idols unless you don't agree with them. Funny that.
Alex also insinuated that Aristocrat might face grave consequences if it chose to ignore him. “The matter could become worse if technical details would be available for your competitors or will be shared via internet or media,” he warned.
Or in other words...stick your hands up punk, this is a shake down...
Takes no account whatsoever of why people voted to leave in the first place.
I get 'page does not exist' for that one Scott. Has it been deleted or is it a cut and paste error?
But the demise of British Leyland didn't mark the despise of manufacturing in the UK or even car manufacturing in the UK. We produce more cars today as a nation than we did when Leyland was around.
Whereas if there are tariffs then consumers here can choose to buy from here and elsewhere in the world for better value, especially if trade deals were in place.
May suit SLAB more though, in which case it likely wouldn't happen.
We did so by deregulating our economy and making ourselves more competitive. Something that we can do more of if we follow Minford's advice.
(Your avatar might take more of a dent though
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/you-dont-have-to-be-hypocritical-coward.html
Letter I sent to Carswell/UKIP policy team in 2014 pt1
"A problem that particularly affects the working class is the growing number of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in betting shops. I have worked in the bookmaking industry for nearly twenty years, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. The existence of the betting exchanges, namely Betfair, has meant that the bookie vs punter battle is all but over. Bookmakers are unable to compete with the margins that the exchanges bet to, but what they lose in custom they make up for in wages. As the exchanges are the ultimate guide to the betting market, they no longer have to employ as many odds compilers, they just copy the exchange and add a bit of margin. If the bookmaker is out of line with the exchanges, and punters try to take the bookie price, the bookie stops them betting, or limits them to pennies. To all intents and purposes the high St bookie should be dead. They don't take many bets, and they don't let people bet much.
But they are kept afloat by the FOBTs. These are basically Fruit Machines on crack cocaine. There is no edge for the punter as the machines are programmed to win a certain percentage. It is not about skill, they cannot be beaten. Bookmakers now have as many of these machines as possible in betting shops, and staff I have spoken to have told me they are instructed to teach punters how to play them, and stay open as long as possible even when there is barely any sport to bet on. Labour MP Tom Watson has done a great deal of work on the problems of FOBTs. They are a social menace, causing misery to many who cant afford to lose the money they are, and the anger on the part of the player when they lose is often also distressing for the employee, who is usually working alone late at night. The bookmakers that are applying to open shops in High Streets in poor areas (Newham is a particular example) are only doing so in order to pile these machines into them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-watson-mp/tom-watson-gambling-machines_b_4108634.html
Watson wants some kind of ban on them, Cameron is dithering"
"My idea would be to make bookmakers who want FOBTs in their shops re apply for a license as an amusement arcade rather than a bookmaker, and remove their ability to take bets on sport in that shop if such a licence is granted. I predict that Bookmakers such as Ladbrokes, Coral and William Hill would baulk at this, but at the moment they are no more than fences for FOBTs anyway. They wont take bets off people who have any clue about betting, but are happy to let the poorest in society lose their wages in a machine which it is impossible to beat. Strange as it may sound, the name Ladbrokes/Hills/Corals adds a cloak of respectability to the mugging that takes place inside their shops. Attaching their name to an amusement arcade would (a) discourage them from applying as it would damage their brand, and (b) give the authorities the chance to deny permission for the arcade. Either would be a bonus for the man in the street.
Because they cannot be beaten, the bookies let anybody have anything they like in these machines
rethink gambling @rethinkgambling Dec 15
.@Coral You took this from a known #gambling #addict on Friday. Anything to say to his children this Christmas? pic.twitter.com/5JIfztXZrL
I have written a couple of articles on this deception here
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/luis-louis-ladbrokes-life.html
and here
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/you-dont-have-to-be-hypocritical-coward.html
and here is a blog from a betting shop worker who knows the truth behind the supposed advice to "Bet responsibly"
https://contributoria.com/issue/2014-12/544128ff96bd93a404000051
To encourage the existence of a traditional bookmakers, I would offer an tax incentive for those who bet to a low margin and accept large bets in FOBT-less shops. At the moment they bet to very big margins and refuse to take many bets. The betting market in the far east is thriving by accepting enormous bets at low margin, and that is something I feel we could tap into. I have many contacts in the bookmaking game, both poacher and gamekeeper so to speak, and could help pack out a detailed policy if you decide to follow it up.
If we press this policy I feel it will be both a vote winner and enhance UKIPs reputation as the party that has the interests of the working class at heart"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40990927
I know it sounds like a crazy thing to say, but the people of Barcelona got very lucky.
Though why are you wasting your talents with UKIP ffs?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en
If that means that Brexiteers need to come up with a differentiated solution for the territory of the UK in order to 'reap the benefits' of Brexit, that's up to them.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/898531539553841156
It is simply not possible to reach a near-final agreement on the border issue until we’ve begun to talk about how our broader future customs arrangement will work.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/20/brexit-davis-urges-brussels-rethink-on-holding-withdrawal-and-trade-talks-at-same-time?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
How much, proportionately, of your income as a professional gambler came from "being clever" in the manner of systematically estimating probabilities in a field you could model so much better than the bookies that your edge beat their vig, and how much from merely "being observant" e.g. to the presence of arbitrage opportunities or spotting obvious, one-off mispricings?
I presume serious professional gamblers these days are mostly limited to the exchanges, and as Sam points out, bookies largely take their odds from the exchanges now anyway. Even when you were "being clever", was a lot of the profit really coming from checking the spread of odds available at different bookies (i.e. you could systematically hold an edge against the most generous odds available, but you would have had a small or no edge if you had gone for the mid-market odds) which disappeared once the spread of odds available to you narrowed?
As for my idea, any party is free to run with it. UKIP seemed keen, although Carswell didnt deign to reply. Conservatives would be best as they can actually implement it! Or maybe Sadiq Khan could start it off in London?? Newham is one of the worst affected areas
Oh.
"UK supermarket may have infected thousands with Hepatitis E virus from sausages and pork of EU pigs, researchers warn"
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-supermarket-may-have-infected-thousands-with-hepatitis-e-virus-from-sausages-and-pork-of-eu-pigs-researchers-warn/ar-AAqnBHi?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=ientp
"Eggs contaminated with insecticide may have entered UK, EU warns"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/07/eggs-contaminated-with-insecticide-may-have-entered-uk-eu-warns
This seems a complicated attempt to achieve largely the same result.
But EU protect us from 'Chlorine washed Chicken' (as much chlorine as in a whole glass of water*) while we eat our chlorine washed salad......
*But only if you eat a whole chicken, without cooking it...
NHS, Education, Housing, Planning, Environment etc... vs. immigration, most taxes, employment legislation, foreign affairs, energy, defence...
It's probably fairly even I would have thought.
My mathematical models for things like cricket totals weren't massively sophisticated (if I could be bothered / had time it would be an interesting exercise to do given what I now know), but at that time there was nothing like CricViz stats or WASP being displayed on Sky, rather commentators still talking about generally 6 an over is good from here so that means x.
So in answer to your question, it was a combination of both. Inefficient / poorly informed markets and people trying to wager manually when I could get a machine to trade for me.
Understandably since alcohol is involved there is a restriction on fruit machines that the highest possible payout is £100 and maximum possible spin is £1. Even if you doubled or tripled that for bookmakers you could have terminals that could be used without being as voracious as FOBTs.