Vaguely relatedly, I've built a system for settling factual questions, in most cases quickly and cheaply, using a system of escalating bonds. (Details here, if anyone's interested.)
When you get stubborn people prepared to put seriously high bonds behind their chosen answer, it falls back on an arbitrator, who, for a very attractive fee, is prepared to wade into the trickier questions and make a judgement. I've got this thing up on the test network of the Ethereum system, which uses play money instead of real, valuable, magic internet money. I'm set up as the arbitrator, and I've been tasked with arbitrating the question:
In Saudi Arabia, do female characters in the game Mario Kart wear burkas?
Does anyone know, or have any idea how I could find out?
That’s a funny question. My suggestion is to call Active Gulf, who are the distributor of Nintendo products in the Middle East. http://active-gulf.com/aboutus.php
Vaguely relatedly, I've built a system for settling factual questions, in most cases quickly and cheaply, using a system of escalating bonds. (Details here, if anyone's interested.)
When you get stubborn people prepared to put seriously high bonds behind their chosen answer, it falls back on an arbitrator, who, for a very attractive fee, is prepared to wade into the trickier questions and make a judgement. I've got this thing up on the test network of the Ethereum system, which uses play money instead of real, valuable, magic internet money. I'm set up as the arbitrator, and I've been tasked with arbitrating the question:
In Saudi Arabia, do female characters in the game Mario Kart wear burkas?
Does anyone know, or have any idea how I could find out?
Move from Tokyo to Saudi Arabia.
Seems like overkill, especially since I'm only getting paid in testnet ETH.
Vaguely relatedly, I've built a system for settling factual questions, in most cases quickly and cheaply, using a system of escalating bonds. (Details here, if anyone's interested.)
When you get stubborn people prepared to put seriously high bonds behind their chosen answer, it falls back on an arbitrator, who, for a very attractive fee, is prepared to wade into the trickier questions and make a judgement. I've got this thing up on the test network of the Ethereum system, which uses play money instead of real, valuable, magic internet money. I'm set up as the arbitrator, and I've been tasked with arbitrating the question:
In Saudi Arabia, do female characters in the game Mario Kart wear burkas?
Does anyone know, or have any idea how I could find out?
Would there not be a Saudi version of the game in Arabic on the disk/download? Play it and see.
On William Hill, they didn't pay out on Cameron ceasing to be leader of the Conservative Party until after he ceased to be PM. That was poor in my opinion.
Here's my oldest political bet at the moment !
19/11/2013 Single To Win No @ 4/7 |Will Berlusconi be a PDL candidate in t Will Silvio Berlusconi be a PDL candidate at the next general election?
At least it's a winner.
Unless FI counts as PDL...
Heh, they're making me wait till the Italian GE I guess.
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
" I turn next to commercial common sense. I believe there is considerable force in the argument advanced by Mr Sandison. It is, I am persuaded, impossible to determine whether a particular sporting event has occurred other than by references to the rules of the sport. It would be impossible for a betting business to be run and for it to offer bets on sporting events without reference to the rules of the sports. Bets on sporting events could not be offered except by reference to the rules of the sport. There is no alternative in a sporting context to such an approach. For these reasons I am persuaded in this case that commercial common sense is a significant factor in arriving at a sound construction."
Applying "the rules of the game" to Westminster does an MP who decides not to stand for re-election "resign"? How are they treated financially compared with someone who gives up their seat during a Parliament?
The prominent PBer in the thread header would like to share this update
I have escalated the matter to William Hill's 'Second Opinion' team and they have replied standing their ground. They say:
1. They often settle bets using synonymous wording, giving the example of 'Next manager of' is settled if a 'Head Coach' is appointed;
2. Labour Party Rules cover the eventuality of MPs not standing for re-election, calling it 'Retiring'; and
3. "The word 'resign' is also a synonym of retire".
Gently remind the that the whole political betting community - indeed the wider betting community - is watching this one with considerable interest....
O/T .If William Hill continue to put their fingers in their ears and sing la-la-la to what is perfectly reasonable grievance,and a shared injustice for any serious punter,the following options are open. Make a formal complaint under WH policy informing them they are are in breach of their own Code of Conduct.
Take the matter to the SmalL Claims Court and inform WH you are so doing. Recommend a daily PB thread until the matter is resolved and issue a press release. Organise a boycott of William Hill who seem to be pre-empting a loss of income from FOBS by unfairly squeezing the poor punter.I am sure Shadsy will assist in this matter.Contact your trade union for free legal advice and assistance.Otherwise,the Community Union who are organised in betting shops but not always recognised.They will be concerned that as an aggrieved customer,you understandly,may be likely to enter one of their shops and verbally abuse,or worse,the shop staff. A long shot -Contact 38 Degrees/Change.org to organise a petition and flood every MPs email box-the slogan being the correct settlement eg what do we want £xxxx,when do we want it,NOW- and a demonstration outside WH's offices wearing Fat Cat outfits. Next,step it up to direct action,occupations,road blocks,living in trees etc etc That should do the trick.Collectivism in action.
The prominent PBer in the thread header would like to share this update
I have escalated the matter to William Hill's 'Second Opinion' team and they have replied standing their ground. They say:
1. They often settle bets using synonymous wording, giving the example of 'Next manager of' is settled if a 'Head Coach' is appointed;
2. Labour Party Rules cover the eventuality of MPs not standing for re-election, calling it 'Retiring'; and
3. "The word 'resign' is also a synonym of retire".
Gently remind the that the whole political betting community - indeed the wider betting community - is watching this one with considerable interest....
And there are also synonyms of "boycott".
I suspect it would be favourable for William Hill if the pb.com community boycotted them.
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
Not on something as big as this. The idea to trash the deal and then trash the economy is just so pathetic and unacceptable
Hmm.... A contract is entered into with fairly unspecific wording. That is surely the fault of the party that drew up the bet but in law the wording has to be given its objective meaning. There is then an unexpected event (a snap election) which was not contemplated by those entering into the bet (to the extent that no specific provision was made and it was not discussed). The wording has to be applied to that event.
A number of sitting MPs decide not to stand again. Have they "resigned"? I think they have. The contingency which allowed them to remain MPs was standing again for election. They didn't. They were not necessarily "retiring". The plonkers who went off to run the V&A or become Mayor of Liverpool did not "retire", they went off to do something more interesting. Why is a sitting MP who chooses to do likewise at an election any different? It is true that they gained an opportunity to do so which they might not have expected but they have still decided that they no longer wanted to be MPs and acted accordingly.
I think the fairest thing to do would be to void the bet on the grounds of the unexpected and unprovided for contingency. But I do think they have a point.
I originally thought so on the definition of "resign", but it was pointed out that MPS were elected for a session of parliament that terminates with the election. During the election they are no longer allowed to refer to themselves as MPs, I think. There is no office for them to resign from.
Mr. Eagles, one could compare the Eastern Roman Empire borders from Basil II's time to just a few decades later.
Declines can happen rapidly. Valentinian the Great was a powerful emperor whose reign ended in 375, and the Western Empire crumbled within a century of his death.
I see Liam's in hot water. Basically his department linked to a Daily Mail article that was just Rees-Mogg bad mouthing the Treasury and the OBR. Not good. Liam should be finalizing that trade deal with Ghana, not disseminating ultra-Brexit propaganda and demeaning his colleagues.
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
Not on something as big as this. The idea to trash the deal and then trash the economy is just so pathetic and unacceptable
Yes, there’s a failure of a number of politicians (and journalists) to realise that sometimes a united front against a common adversary is more important than domestic point scoring. Too many continuity Remainers appear to relish the prospect of a crash-out no-deal scenario just so they can say that they were right that Brexit would be a mess.
Surprised the old bookmakers survive and thrive with Betfair out there. The exchange seems a better model for punters to me.
If I may point out sometimes Betfair fails where William Hill succeeds.
A recent case in point: I wished to bet on the football Under 17 World Cup final between England and Spain.
There was no market up on Betfair so I contacted them only to be told it would be up in time. This was the Thursday before the Saturday match. In the event I could find no event on the exchanges.
I subsequently placed a bet with Will Hill - sadly for Will Hill they lost cash. Oh and England won.
Hmm.... A contract is entered into with fairly unspecific wording. That is surely the fault of the party that drew up the bet but in law the wording has to be given its objective meaning. There is then an unexpected event (a snap election) which was not contemplated by those entering into the bet (to the extent that no specific provision was made and it was not discussed). The wording has to be applied to that event.
A number of sitting MPs decide not to stand again. Have they "resigned"? I think they have. The contingency which allowed them to remain MPs was standing again for election. They didn't. They were not necessarily "retiring". The plonkers who went off to run the V&A or become Mayor of Liverpool did not "retire", they went off to do something more interesting. Why is a sitting MP who chooses to do likewise at an election any different? It is true that they gained an opportunity to do so which they might not have expected but they have still decided that they no longer wanted to be MPs and acted accordingly.
I think the fairest thing to do would be to void the bet on the grounds of the unexpected and unprovided for contingency. But I do think they have a point.
I originally thought so on the definition of "resign", but it was pointed out that MPS were elected for a session of parliament that terminates with the election. During the election they are no longer allowed to refer to themselves as MPs, I think. There is no office for them to resign from.
I have changed my mind.
I think either side is arguable and it is not clear cut. I don't know what the "rules of the game" provide for an MP who does not stand again. If it is the same package as a resigning MP gets that may be in WH's favour. If it isn't then not standing would seem to be different.
Guido has repeatedly put this to Dent Coad over the last two days. She has declined to comment. It’s another Jared O’Mara case – Labour clearly didn’t vet this candidate, and now the people of Kensington have ended up with a fruitcake for an MP…
What are you suggesting? The electorate have responsibility for their choice. Unless in Sheffield Hallam and North Kensington we print the ballot papers with a new wording -The Labour Party (Fruitcake) Candidate.
In future on markets like this we should get the bookie to confirm that they means only via The Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds and of The Manor of Northstead routes.
That would be helpful. How, for example, on the basis of their market, would Hills have defined Carl Sergeant's departure from the Welsh Assembly (I apologise for this being somewhat in bad taste but I do think it's a legitimate point in context: under the OED definition, it would could).
I do note that WH have two markets currently up on politicians leaving office - When will TM leave office as PM and When will the next Cabinet Minister leave their post. Both have far broader wording than this one did.
There would have to be something very weird for "Leaving post of PM" to be unclear. But cabinet minister leaving their post, if that is the wording, is terrible. Does a reshuffle where no cabinet minister leaves the cabinet count. What if a new cabinet post is created? Change of ministry definition.
Think of the scenario where David Davis leaves the cabinet when DExEU is abolished in March 2019
On current trends David Davis will most likely be leaving DExEU to succeed May as PM.
He is the only prominent leadership contender with enough support amongst both Tory MPs and Tory members to be elected leader as far as I can see at the moment.
He is also close to May while having the support of some key anti May rebels like Grant Shapps and a Leaver but a sane one.
A surprisingly good figure for Theresa May, given the state of the government and the media coverage over the past few weeks.
On the other hand, the downside is that the Conservatives' favourability is basically identical (1% more) to May's.
Which again shows that the Tories' problems are not going to be solved simply by switching to a new leader -- it's the Conservative brand that's unpopular, and May is simply on a par with it rather than acting as a big drag on it like some think. There is no great swathe of Tory sympathisers out there just waiting to be unlocked as soon as the party elects A.N.Other as leader.
You don't need to stop German car imports at the Northern Ireland or other UK borders to collect the 10% import tariff under WTO rules. You check new car registrations and/or require dealers to notify HM Customs and Excise of imports.
Set up an equivalent system of compulsory registration of all the stuff sold in in Britain, and you're done. OK, not entirely, as you also need to get all the shops in the EU to implement the same system, otherwise they'll need controls on the Irish side.
The WTO tariff on most non agricultural items is 3%. It's only cars which are both high value and 10% tariff that are worth tracking.
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
Self interest on that scale I think would backfire.
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
It seems to me not such a matter of "wrecking" Brexit, though that may well be the intention of some, as simple disagreement as to what Brexit should look like. Theresa has her vision, as does JRM as does Corbyn as does Hannan. There is no consensus on this, not even within the cabinet.
The starting point of negotiations is generally knowing what you want, and that seems to be where our team has gone wrong.
Guido has repeatedly put this to Dent Coad over the last two days. She has declined to comment. It’s another Jared O’Mara case – Labour clearly didn’t vet this candidate, and now the people of Kensington have ended up with a fruitcake for an MP…
What are you suggesting? The electorate have responsibility for their choice. Unless in Sheffield Hallam and North Kensington we print the ballot papers with a new wording -The Labour Party (Fruitcake) Candidate.
The bottom line is the party has a responsibilty to check the candidate is suitable fo represent the party before putting them in front of their membership.
In O'Mara and the odious Dent Coad cases that does not seem to have happened
Guido has repeatedly put this to Dent Coad over the last two days. She has declined to comment. It’s another Jared O’Mara case – Labour clearly didn’t vet this candidate, and now the people of Kensington have ended up with a fruitcake for an MP…
What are you suggesting? The electorate have responsibility for their choice. Unless in Sheffield Hallam and North Kensington we print the ballot papers with a new wording -The Labour Party (Fruitcake) Candidate.
Meanwhile the many unalloyed fruitcakes skulking on the backbenches with safe seats go without scrutiny.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
A surprisingly good figure for Theresa May, given the state of the government and the media coverage over the past few weeks.
On the other hand, the downside is that the Conservatives' favourability is basically identical (1% more) to May's.
Which again shows that the Tories' problems are not going to be solved simply by switching to a new leader -- it's the Conservative brand that's unpopular, and May is simply on a par with it rather than acting as a big drag on it like some think. There is no great swathe of Tory sympathisers out there just waiting to be unlocked as soon as the party elects A.N.Other as leader.
40% still voting Tory in the latest yougov, that is still a pretty strong brand even if Corbyn forms a minority government
The HOC and HOL are heavily remain and they are trying to derail Brexit by saying they respect the vote but ...................
If they had any sense and were mature they would unite behind the Government to get the best deal from Europe and then, if as so many think, we end up in an economic armageddon, there will be an overwhelming demand to rejoin.
That process would go some way to heal the divisions but when have politicians ever acted in a mature manner
Surely it's in the opposition parties' interest to wreck any EU deal, bring about the hardest of Brexit and then watch the Tories take a battering as the economy tanks. What could the Tories do? Trying to blame the other parties for the disaster would just sound childish and would be neutralized anyway when the likes of Rees-Mogg have been advocating that very outcome. A real horror show is in the offing.
It seems to me not such a matter of "wrecking" Brexit, though that may well be the intention of some, as simple disagreement as to what Brexit should look like. Theresa has her vision, as does JRM as does Corbyn as does Hannan. There is no consensus on this, not even within the cabinet.
The starting point of negotiations is generally knowing what you want, and that seems to be where our team has gone wrong.
Bottom line. Leavers need Brexit to be a success. Blaming the EU and those sceptical about the project for not doing what you want doesn't count as success. A worsening economic situation isn't success. Some of this is outside their control but it doesn't change the point. They sold the project on an outcome. They have to deliver it. They could start by not making things worse than they need to be.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
It just shows how much the Tories have lost their moral compass. A spending-bonanza welfare socialist like Rees-Mogg is lauded, whilst those who advocate fiscal constraint like Osborne and Hammond are sacked or sidelined. Rees-Mogg should just join Momentum and be done with it.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Osborne wanted to take spending down to 35% of gdp, the same percentage as the tax take, which would permanently have ended the deficit. Election 2017 when the Tories lost their majority put paid to that and Corbyn if he gets in will use tax increases as his main tool of deficit reduction, especially on the rich
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Osborne wanted to take spending down to 35% of gdp, the same percentage as the tax take, which would permanently have ended the deficit. Election 2017 when the Tories lost their majority put paid to that and Corbyn if he gets in will use tax increases as his main tool of deficit reduction, especially on the rich
He'll have to define 'rich' pretty widely if he's to have an impact on the deficit by raising taxes.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Yes. Its completely daft. The only basis that works is if the economy is consistently growing by more than 3%. It isn't, it hasn't and it won't.
To talk of a "return in the economy" is some sort of mythical isolation is frankly stupid. What is the bottom line? If the economy is growing at 2% or less then borrowing must be 2% or less. In the ideal it is much less because you should recognise that recessions will come along from time to time and the deficit will increase by using the automatic stabilisers and you want to make some provision for that. Tories used to call it fixing the roof when the sun was shining.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Osborne wanted to take spending down to 35% of gdp, the same percentage as the tax take, which would permanently have ended the deficit. Election 2017 when the Tories lost their majority put paid to that and Corbyn if he gets in will use tax increases as his main tool of deficit reduction, especially on the rich
He'll have to define 'rich' pretty widely if he's to have an impact on the deficit by raising taxes.
Inheritance tax, income tax for higher earners, corporation tax etc would all rise under Corbyn and that would be just the start
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Over the long-term on average yes kind of. So long as growth is 3% over the long term and so long as its a mix of potentially more than that during and just after recessions and less than that during the good times.
However Brown put paid to that by running that level of deficit in the good times so that when the bad times hit the deficit exploded way beyond that.
Given that we have for a decade now been running deficits over that time we need to be running for quite some time a deficit much less than that to recover and lower our debt to GDP ratio as otherwise when the next inevitable recession hits we will be absolutely stuffed.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Osborne wanted to take spending down to 35% of gdp, the same percentage as the tax take, which would permanently have ended the deficit. Election 2017 when the Tories lost their majority put paid to that and Corbyn if he gets in will use tax increases as his main tool of deficit reduction, especially on the rich
He'll have to define 'rich' pretty widely if he's to have an impact on the deficit by raising taxes.
Corbyn said that no-one earning less that £80k per year will pay more income tax. What he didn’t say is that after five years of his government the inflation and devaluation would combine to make £80k barely the minimum wage.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Yes. Its completely daft. The only basis that works is if the economy is consistently growing by more than 3%. It isn't, it hasn't and it won't.
To talk of a "return in the economy" is some sort of mythical isolation is frankly stupid. What is the bottom line? If the economy is growing at 2% or less then borrowing must be 2% or less. In the ideal it is much less because you should recognise that recessions will come along from time to time and the deficit will increase by using the automatic stabilisers and you want to make some provision for that. Tories used to call it fixing the roof when the sun was shining.
Isn't the deficit nominal while growth is real?
If we have 3% inflation and 2% real growth then nominally our GDP is increasing by approximately 5% per annum. 3% deficit while more than real growth is less than nominal growth thanks to inflation so debt/GDP ratio which is what matters most should come down.
However we need to get debt/GDP down quite considerably and the only way to do that in the relatively short time before the next inevitable recession (and to provide a buffer to allow counter-cyclical spending increases when needed) is to be running a deficit well below nominal growth.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
We could always pass a one-line bill to extend the negotiating time if necessary.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
No, 3% is too high - it's roughly what Brown was borrowing pre-2008. He's probably right that if it's well invested in schemes that provide a return, it might pay for itself. However, the ability of governments to pick those schemes hasn't been great in the past.
A steady deficit of under 2% - i.e. below the trend growth rate - is probably sustainable though. That said, after the borrowing that's been done since 2008, returning to surplus to pay off some of the debt might not be a bad idea.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
We could always pass a one-line bill to extend the negotiating time if necessary.
Labour would vote against that as well, its not about principle, its about tactics.
An extra £18.2bn a year on the NHS at a time when we have a persistent deficit which may well go up next year? And this guy says he is a Conservative? Sheesh.
Do you disagree with the Conservative MP who says a permanent deficit of around 3% is "absolutely fine"?
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Osborne wanted to take spending down to 35% of gdp, the same percentage as the tax take, which would permanently have ended the deficit. Election 2017 when the Tories lost their majority put paid to that and Corbyn if he gets in will use tax increases as his main tool of deficit reduction, especially on the rich
He'll have to define 'rich' pretty widely if he's to have an impact on the deficit by raising taxes.
Corbyn said that no-one earning less that £80k per year will pay more income tax. What he didn’t say is that after five years of his government the inflation and devaluation would combine to make £80k barely the minimum wage.
Just had a thought (which those following my twitter feed might have seen) re Brexit and A50 revocation. There is another way to preserve membership while remaining unambiguously compliant with the Treaty.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
She is trapped by mad Brexiteer loons who are happy to take this country off a cliff into an economic depression.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
We could always pass a one-line bill to extend the negotiating time if necessary.
So what would be the point of the original clause then if you're going to (try to) repeal it if it becomes inconvenient?
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
We could always pass a one-line bill to extend the negotiating time if necessary.
So what would be the point of the original clause then if you're going to (try to) repeal it if it becomes inconvenient?
Like the FTPA I don't think there is much of one except that currently the date (29/3/17) is actually already set in law unless it gets varied but at the moment the time of exit is not set. This amendment would set a time as well as a date and that is ultimately important but I see no need for it to be done now.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Having said last week they’d agree to it. Starmer is truly batting for the other side.
In a democracy it is usual for the opposition parties to oppose. That's their job.
Not to oppose what they themselves support and have called for, no its not!
Its their job to oppose what they actually oppose and hold the government to account on that, not just be brainless no-men any more than it is the government's backbenchers job to be brainless yes-men.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
We could always pass a one-line bill to extend the negotiating time if necessary.
So what would be the point of the original clause then if you're going to (try to) repeal it if it becomes inconvenient?
Isnt that the case with any law Gordon Brown's 10% income tax band was repealed when it became inconvenient for example
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
She is trapped by mad Brexiteer loons who are happy to take this country off a cliff into an economic depression.
Indeed. I wonder, though, if it was intended as a diversion to keep the ultras happy whilst May conceded more cash to the EU so talks can move forward? If so then it has failed spectacularly.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
She is trapped by mad Brexiteer loons who are happy to take this country off a cliff into an economic depression.
Indeed. I wonder, though, if it was intended as a diversion to keep the ultras happy whilst May conceded more cash to the EU so talks can move forward? If so then it has failed spectacularly.
Or possibly its something to draw the fire of the remain obsessives
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
She is trapped by mad Brexiteer loons who are happy to take this country off a cliff into an economic depression.
Indeed. I wonder, though, if it was intended as a diversion to keep the ultras happy whilst May conceded more cash to the EU so talks can move forward? If so then it has failed spectacularly.
"Intended to but Failed Spectacularly" pretty much defines May's tenure.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
@JohnRentoul: Labour will vote against Govt amendment to put Brexit date in Bill says @peston
Of all the silly and counter-productive gestures May has made on Brexit to backbench MPs, this is the worst of the lot. How could anyone think it's in our interests to close off the possibility of extending the negotiating time if necessary?
We could always pass a one-line bill to extend the negotiating time if necessary.
So what would be the point of the original clause then if you're going to (try to) repeal it if it becomes inconvenient?
They need the practice so that they are proficient when they have to repeal Brexit
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal. .
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Something tells me she might having a passing familiarity with the issues at hand
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Except employers are forced to maximise employees tax via PAYE.
Just had a thought (which those following my twitter feed might have seen) re Brexit and A50 revocation. There is another way to preserve membership while remaining unambiguously compliant with the Treaty.
I just had a look. Your photo does not look anything like you.
I never noticed the A50 revocation bit bit then again, I find twitter confusing to navigate sometimes.
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Something tells me she might having a passing familiarity with the issues at hand
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Except employers are forced to maximise employees tax via PAYE.
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
Real. In the long term, the interest rate the markets demand will adjust to account for inflation / exchange rate depreciation.
Just had a thought (which those following my twitter feed might have seen) re Brexit and A50 revocation. There is another way to preserve membership while remaining unambiguously compliant with the Treaty.
I just had a look. Your photo does not look anything like you.
I never noticed the A50 revocation bit bit then again, I find twitter confusing to navigate sometimes.
Yeah. I need to update my photo. It looks like me from 5 years ago.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Something tells me she might having a passing familiarity with the issues at hand
I wonder why nobody in the House asked her about it? #all-Up-To-Their-Necks-In-It!!!!!
Because the can of worms opening would engulf too many on either side, and if we start talking about Paul Dacre and his boss, Jonathan Harmsworth.... Well? Where would it end...
A surprisingly good figure for Theresa May, given the state of the government and the media coverage over the past few weeks.
Corbyn did surprisingly well when he was first elected. His poll rating drifted down slowly rather than plummeting. It takes a while for public opinion to catch up.
@DavidL or @david_herdson can you confirm whether over the very long-term it is nominal or real growth that matters regarding a deficit to keep debt-to-gdp stable?
Real. In the long term, the interest rate the markets demand will adjust to account for inflation / exchange rate depreciation.
But over the long term doesn't interest already get taken into account within the deficit? It was my understanding that interest is a very significant chunk of our deficit already.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
Has anyone told the silly moo that tax AVOIDANCE is legal and that no one is obliged to structure their affairs in such a way as to make them liable for more tax?
Something tells me she might having a passing familiarity with the issues at hand
Comments
" I turn next to commercial common sense. I believe there is considerable force in the argument advanced by Mr Sandison. It is, I am persuaded, impossible to determine whether a particular sporting event has occurred other than by references to the rules of the sport. It would be impossible for a betting business to be run and for it to offer bets on sporting events without reference to the rules of the sports. Bets on sporting events could not be offered except by reference to the rules of the sport. There is no alternative in a sporting context to such an approach. For these reasons I am persuaded in this case that commercial common sense is a significant factor in arriving at a sound construction."
Applying "the rules of the game" to Westminster does an MP who decides not to stand for re-election "resign"? How are they treated financially compared with someone who gives up their seat during a Parliament?
And there are also synonyms of "boycott".
Make a formal complaint under WH policy informing them they are are in breach of their own Code of Conduct.
https://www.williamhillplc.com/responsibility/code-of-conduct-and-policies/code-of-conduct/
Contact IBAS,heavily weighted in the layers' favour but is supposed to be a voluntary arrangement when legisaltion is required to protect the punter from the layers twisting the rules.
http://www.ibas-uk.com/
Take the matter to the SmalL Claims Court and inform WH you are so doing.
Recommend a daily PB thread until the matter is resolved and issue a press release.
Organise a boycott of William Hill who seem to be pre-empting a loss of income from FOBS by unfairly squeezing the poor punter.I am sure Shadsy will assist in this matter.Contact your trade union for free legal advice and assistance.Otherwise,the Community Union who are organised in betting shops but not always recognised.They will be concerned that as an aggrieved customer,you understandly,may be likely to enter one of their shops and verbally abuse,or worse,the shop staff.
A long shot -Contact 38 Degrees/Change.org to organise a petition and flood every MPs email box-the slogan being the correct settlement eg what do we want £xxxx,when do we want it,NOW- and a demonstration outside WH's offices wearing Fat Cat outfits.
Next,step it up to direct action,occupations,road blocks,living in trees etc etc
That should do the trick.Collectivism in action.
All For One and One For All.
https://twitter.com/mikko/status/929740438294204416
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41936543
I have changed my mind.
He is more Brexit than Boris
Declines can happen rapidly. Valentinian the Great was a powerful emperor whose reign ended in 375, and the Western Empire crumbled within a century of his death.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/14/theresa-may-ally-accuses-hammond-of-vetoing-politics-promoting-economic-justice-politics-live?page=with:block-5a0ad83fbe620206ef71bced#block-5a0ad83fbe620206ef71bced
A recent case in point:
I wished to bet on the football Under 17 World Cup final between England and Spain.
There was no market up on Betfair so I contacted them only to be told it would be up in time.
This was the Thursday before the Saturday match. In the event I could find no event on the exchanges.
I subsequently placed a bet with Will Hill - sadly for Will Hill they lost cash.
Oh and England won.
He is the only prominent leadership contender with enough support amongst both Tory MPs and Tory members to be elected leader as far as I can see at the moment.
He is also close to May while having the support of some key anti May rebels like Grant Shapps and a Leaver but a sane one.
Which again shows that the Tories' problems are not going to be solved simply by switching to a new leader -- it's the Conservative brand that's unpopular, and May is simply on a par with it rather than acting as a big drag on it like some think. There is no great swathe of Tory sympathisers out there just waiting to be unlocked as soon as the party elects A.N.Other as leader.
The starting point of negotiations is generally knowing what you want, and that seems to be where our team has gone wrong.
In O'Mara and the odious Dent Coad cases that does not seem to have happened
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41927864
"Many governments run deficits of that sort of level year on year. So long as you are spending the money on investment, there is a very good prospect that that will generate a return in the economy that enables you to pay the debt down."
Brent Crude is at $62, blowing their crystal balls to pieces.
Sounds good to me.
To talk of a "return in the economy" is some sort of mythical isolation is frankly stupid. What is the bottom line? If the economy is growing at 2% or less then borrowing must be 2% or less. In the ideal it is much less because you should recognise that recessions will come along from time to time and the deficit will increase by using the automatic stabilisers and you want to make some provision for that. Tories used to call it fixing the roof when the sun was shining.
However Brown put paid to that by running that level of deficit in the good times so that when the bad times hit the deficit exploded way beyond that.
Given that we have for a decade now been running deficits over that time we need to be running for quite some time a deficit much less than that to recover and lower our debt to GDP ratio as otherwise when the next inevitable recession hits we will be absolutely stuffed.
If we have 3% inflation and 2% real growth then nominally our GDP is increasing by approximately 5% per annum. 3% deficit while more than real growth is less than nominal growth thanks to inflation so debt/GDP ratio which is what matters most should come down.
However we need to get debt/GDP down quite considerably and the only way to do that in the relatively short time before the next inevitable recession (and to provide a buffer to allow counter-cyclical spending increases when needed) is to be running a deficit well below nominal growth.
A steady deficit of under 2% - i.e. below the trend growth rate - is probably sustainable though. That said, after the borrowing that's been done since 2008, returning to surplus to pay off some of the debt might not be a bad idea.
Its their job to oppose what they actually oppose and hold the government to account on that, not just be brainless no-men any more than it is the government's backbenchers job to be brainless yes-men.
Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.
She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.
What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.
It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.
It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34621004
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41936543
I look forward to the apology from Labour.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/930422938179956737
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html
I never noticed the A50 revocation bit bit then again, I find twitter confusing to navigate sometimes.
His budget is going to get monstered.
Labour may attack it too.
His critics aren't really proper Tories.
Nick Timothy sounds like Gordon Brown with his spend spend borrow borrow mantra.
35% top rate, double tuition fees, and a new tax payable only by pensioners. Just for kicks.
She completely thrashed the accusers.
You cannot hold her to account for what the Oppenheimers are upto. She does not control the family firm.
As long as she's talking, no one gets to ask her questions...