Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Sky Bet decision that points to problems for sites like PB
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Sky Bet decision that points to problems for sites like PB
Affiliates are third-party companies who work on commission for gambling retailers by directing traffic (customers) to their sites. In the last few years the use of affiliate companies has vastly increased due to the tighter regulation and rising cost of traditional advertising. A 2015 study by the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) estimates that over £16.5bn worth of sales were the result of this performance based marketing.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/919667153334349824
Not sure if this is a new Tory policy so they dont have to put taxes up for the rich or something to do with the weather
https://twitter.com/StGeorgeOfEU/status/919671265299968000
The reason for this is that Africa is punished by the EU with a 7.5 per cent tariff charge on roasted coffee but non-decaffeinated green coffee is exempt. As a result, the bulk of Africa’s export to the EU is unroasted green coffee and German manufacturers reap the rewards.
The charge on cocoa is even more debilitating as the EU tariff charge is a massive30 per cent for processed cocoa products like chocolate bars or cocoa powder, and 60 per cent for some other refined products containing cocoa.
Calestous Juma insists that the impact of such charges goes well beyond lost export opportunities. “They suppress technological innovation and industrial development among African countries.
“The practice denies the continent the ability to acquire, adopt and diffuse technologies used in food processing. It explains to some extent the low level of investment in Africa’s food processing enterprises,” he says.
"
We can still blame the Tories, though, can’t we? They haven’t issued a Red Warning because they don’t care whether the poor get blown away by the hurricane.
http://www.ico.org/documents/icc-107-7e-tariffs-trade.pdf
PB's affiliate income is, as you'd expect, a lot higher in years when there've been big elections. If there is little of interest to bet on then it declines sharply.
What actually are the true figures for anything?
I signed up to 4 or 5 betting sites pre-GE 17, but I am afraid it never occurred to me to use the links which I now see on the right of the page; they are too discreet, esp when using a tablet or phone.
So the choices are:-
1. No deal at all
2. Paying up and still have no deal. Possibly some transitional arrangement might be agreed.
3. Reversing our position and saying that we won’t leave the SM or customs union but will leave the EU’s political structures. This would be in line - technically - with the referendum result but not what many of those who voted Leave expected. It would take a huge amount of courage and persuasive ability to get this through.
4. Withdrawing our Article 50 letter. Almost certainly not legally possible and, more importantly, probably also politically impossible in the UK.
Wharever route is taken, tough times ahead, methinks. Certainly in the short-term.
(Perhaps we need some off the wall thinking. Maybe Mrs May could pick up on Juncker’s recent statement that Britain should be thanked for what it did in the war but that it was now time to pay and say that that bill would be settled once the European countries had paid what they owed Britain for what it did for them in the war.
particularly when we host the world's most important financial centre. If we still had exchange controls it would be a lot easier.
On that note, good night!
Presumably the steep rise in UK gold exports shows in these figures too.
http://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how-gold-takes-the-shine-off-britains-trade-figures-11057545
The top 2 reasons given by Leave voters for voting Leave were 'The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK' and 'Voting to Leave offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.'
The top 2 reasons given by Remain voters for voting Remain were 'The risks of voting to leave the EU looked too great when it came to things like the economy, jobs and prices' and 'Access to the EU single market, while out of the Euro and no-borders areas, giving the best of both worlds'
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Malawian Gin is rather good though (and has a cult following amongst expats) and the beer is quite palatable.
That poster was just a Cummings stunt
At a time like this what we really need are politicians with the courage to spell out the real choices we face, the consequences of each and to push through the best option we have available, doubtless in the face of a lot of sniping from their own side.
What we don’t need is more game-playing.
Our trouble is that we don’t have such politicians around.
Anyway, feeling a bit achey and fluey this evening so will say goodnight and hooe that a decent night’s sleep will sort matters.
Edit Latvia is even worse. 21% VAT plus €142/100kg duty
If and when voters decide they want to return to the single market, perhaps after a number of years of falling immigration leading to a more conciliatory approach to free movement, they can elect a party that will do so (probably requiring a post-Corbyn Labour leader to deliver it) but in the short term those are the 2 key priorities of Brexit
Bless.
If you really want riots in the streets, ignoring the biggest democratic mandate since WW2 would be a good place to start.
So for what it’s worth, the proposals in our recent position papers on everything from data flows to customs checks are seen as naive and unworkable - largely because we are perceived as not having accepted that we are to become a third party, a stranger to them, no longer a member of the family.
My powerful impression is that the rest of the EU sees the UK government as less hostile than it was, but considerably more muddled.
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-15/theresa-may-brexit-barnier-juncker/
I believe I said this when they released them. Indeed, it might have been you I said it to (in which case I apologise for the repetition) Damn, this is beginning to worry me...
Bullshit spin from Christopher Hope;
"Chancellor attempts to save his job by gambling on reforms aimed at 'inter-generational fairness'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41631277
If he wanted to save his job, he'd be doing the exact opposite. He's trying to save the tory party from losing the next election.
I'm not sure he's strong enough to resist the pressure from the tory client vote right now. Abolishing/substantially reducing higher rate tax relief would finish him off, imo.
Let's assume that in a Brexit deal world, the UK economy grows at 2.5% a year in perpetuity.
In a no deal world, it drops 2% in year one, then doesn't grow for two years, and then grows at 2.5% in perpetuity.
Which is better value for the UK taxpayer £100bn now, or no deal?
(As it happens, I don't believe the real bill will end up being anywhere near £100bn, as the "bill" includes contingent liabilities associated with the Irish bailout that will never be paid, and it ignores both assets and payments during the transitional period.)
But the point is a simple one: any bill must be seen in the context of the long term effects on the British economy.
The poll of chief financial officers who make investment decisions at Britain's biggest companies showed that the proportion who think Brexit will damage the business environment dropped to 60 percent from 72 percent in the previous survey.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1CK0YT
But the decline in the value of sterling, and the fall in the rental price of London office space is working against that. People forgot how significant the automatic stabilisers in the modern economy are
As a technology business, the biggest issues for us would be around the recruitment of developers and salespeople. If we do end up with a situation where it is difficult for us to get the right people in London, we would have to build up our European hubs more: there has been a lot of discussion internally about investing in either Berlin or (potentially as a low cost centre) Lisbon.
Our default assumption - and I'm sure this is shared by most companies - is that no deal is simply too expensive for both the EU and the UK.
My bigger concern than Brexit is a recession leading to a Corbyn government. I think that could do an enormous amount of damage.
OK:
Option1: Deal. Cost £100b, growth 2.5%pa
Option2: No deal, Cost 0, growth -2% yr 1, 0 yr 2 and 3, 2.5%pa thereafter.
Notes: Economy yr 0 £2000b, assume simple not compound growth.
Deal (yr vs economy)
1 £1900
2 £1948
3 £1996
4 £2042
5 £2090
Grows at £48b pa thereafter
No deal (yr vs economy)
1 £1960
2 £1960
3 £1960
4 £2009
5 £2058
Grows at £49b pa thereafter
Crossover is around year 38.
You've gone stark raving bonkers.
Firstly, Why would it grow at £48bn (or £49bn) thereafter? That would be a diminishing percentage growth, not 2.5%.
Secondly, £100bn payment does not mean the economy is £100bn smaller in perpetuity. It would be a one off payment in year one, not something that diminished the size of the economy in year two. (And should in any case be modelled as the cost of debt on £100bn.)