politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PLP indicate that they expect Corbyn to win and that th

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

nunu said:

GeoffM said:

Monty said:

GeoffM said:

Monty said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is putting the mask of choice on the face of cowardice.

Being inside the tent and pissing in it does no-one any favours. Get behind Corbyn, or split. Is the name of Labour worth more than the values of Labour?

Stop pussyfooting about!

Yes, a split party will be hammered. You're already bloody split.

I don't want the Conservatives to cruise seamlessly to victory because Labour MPs are so damned incompetent. We need a sane opposition.

Oafs.

FPTP ties their hands. Ask UKIP about how easy it is for smaller parties to win seats. I believe the current going rate is 1 MP for every 4 million votes. This seems like a sensible proposal to bide their time until Corbyn can be ousted after losing an election.

Tough. We've only just had a referendum on PR and it failed.
Live with it.

No we didn't. AV is not PR. If only there was a thread we could do on the subject.

Of course it's the same thing - it's just shuffling up the votes of the losers to occasionally stop the real winner winning.

no it isn't, ukip=4 million votes 1 MP

SNP 1.5 million votes = 56 MP's
and a majority on 37% share of the vote! Ofcourse you like it when your side is winning but imagine Milliband got a majority with 37%?

You would hate it.

Trudeau is set to introduce PR in Canada which would leave the UK and US as the only major western nations which still use FPTP at general elections (and of course the US has primaries unlike the UK)

Although France and Australia both use single-member constituency systems, which are far closer to FPTP than they are to PR.

Yes but France has a second ballot system and Australia AV which give greater scope to vote with your heart in the first vote and your head in the second and also ensures the winner has to get over 50% to win

Which have nothing to do with PR as both systems still require tactical voting of one form or another if a candidate fails to win 50%. What they do is work for centrist parties and against divisive ones.

Refreshing nevertheless that some countries have voting with actual 'posts' in the system and not just in the name.

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

The likes of Oxfam are awash with funds, 40% of lottery funding goes to charities, 20% to sport, 20% the arts and 20% heritage
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes

david_herdson said:

Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:

China
USA
USSR/CIS/Russia
E Germany
Romania*
GB

* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.

And how many of those were state sponsored drug cheats?

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects

I doubt the operation of a lottery is party specific - there's lots of guilt to go around on that one. I suspect you're letting your bias show....

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.

It's a tax. A stupidity tax.

Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play

That's arguable and depends on the motivations and risks of the individual. If they are happy to pay a 50% premium on their return for the (very outside) chance to become a millionaire tomorrow, then it's a rational transaction.

And on occasion - when the rollover has grown large enough - the maths are actually in your favour.

Quick question: Moody's Analytics issued its last election prediction (that I know of) in mid-July. Has it issued another one since?

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

The likes of Oxfam are awash with funds, 40% of lottery funding goes to charities, 20% to sport, 20% the arts and 20% heritage
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes

all tories apperently......

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:

China
USA
USSR/CIS/Russia
E Germany
Romania*
GB

* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.

And how many of those were state sponsored drug cheats?

Indeed. Or for that matter, non-state sponsored drugs cheats.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

The likes of Oxfam are awash with funds, 40% of lottery funding goes to charities, 20% to sport, 20% the arts and 20% heritage
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/life-changing/where-the-money-goes

all tories apperently......

Including Paisley, Fraserburgh and Govan it seems which received more than £5.5 million to transform their town centres
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31302446

david_herdson said:

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:

China
USA
USSR/CIS/Russia
E Germany
Romania*
GB

* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.

And how many of those were state sponsored drug cheats?

Indeed. Or for that matter, non-state sponsored drugs cheats.

While some are more guilty than others there are few countries without the odd drug cheat, particularly those with a winning mentality that leads to money.

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.

It's a tax. A stupidity tax.

Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play

Correct and it was sold as a tax for charity. Tories just cannot help stealing it and diverting it to their pet projects. Most people will play at some point.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

malcolmg said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.

It's a tax. A stupidity tax.

Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play

Correct and it was sold as a tax for charity. Tories just cannot help stealing it and diverting it to their pet projects. Most people will play at some point.

40% goes to charity, 20% the arts, 20% heritage, 20% sport, so a plurality does go to charity

foxinsoxuk said:

david_herdson said:

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:

China
USA
USSR/CIS/Russia
E Germany
Romania*
GB

* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.

And how many of those were state sponsored drug cheats?

Indeed. Or for that matter, non-state sponsored drugs cheats.

While some are more guilty than others there are few countries without the odd drug cheat, particularly those with a winning mentality that leads to money.

I think the old approach by UK in that if you got done for drugs you would never be selected for the Olympics, your funding would be withdrawn and you would have to pay back the money probably had some impact on individuals deciding if they wanted to dice with the secret sauce.

Even when Chambers won his case to go to the Olympics and forced a policy change, UK athletics still basically bust him to making him pay all the money back...resulting in having to run and run and run just to pay the bills and UK athletics gave him zero support.

In comparison, US have long been comfortable with athletes who have drugs banned coming back to compete with their full backing.

Omnium said:

MTimT said:

viewcode said:

SeanT said:

Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit...If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit. Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....

Let's assume for the moment that you are in the rational phases of your personality and can be debated with. GBP's collapse post-Crunch was steeper but did not go as low as the post-Brexit crunch, nor did it last as long.. To gauge the effects of this it may also be productive to look at the 1980's GBP/USD drop (which also did not last long), the 1960's devaluation, or the 1970's oil price spike.

You also (inadvertently) trigger one of my perpetual bugbears: people are *very* bad at assessing risk. Small problems over long periods are as important as brief big problems. Nobody is predicting a huge*1 spoke in inflation, but smaller increases over decades are equally bad. After the 70's oil spike, it took the UK Government twenty years to bring it back down. Once it gets into the system, inflation is very difficult to get out

I believe you are/were a Times writer. There was an article in there yesterday about how devaluing the currency prefigures a fall from power. I assume you have a Times subscription, and you can find it here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleopatra-central-banker-of-egypt-has-a-lesson-for-us-zgqtknd22


*1: define "huge"...

Humans are, indeed, hopeless at assessing some risks. And in normal life, small incremental and persistent risk can do more damage than big temporary spikes. But certain big risks are simply qualitatively different than smaller risks. A short sharp death is different from a long chronic disease.

We were promised Armageddon. It did not happen. Sure, there are still other smaller risks, and they might (stress might) add up to something bit. But they are qualitatively different than Armageddon.

Humans are though the best risk assessing thing that we know of. The least good risk assessing things that we know of are also human of course - they're the rating agency employees.

Those rating agency employees that were good at assessing risk were hired by the vanks for more money...

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

Nonsense - it's reflected in the price. That's like the old saw that the seller pays fees on a house sale. The buyer pays it as part of the price.

Charles said:

Omnium said:

MTimT said:

viewcode said:

SeanT said:

Economic thought: all the REMAINER traitors are predicting a huge spike in inflation, thanks to Brexit...If you look over ten years, the £'s collapse after the Crunch was much much bigger than Brexit. Yet inflation over the same period stayed pretty low. It briefly hit 4% but then went back to the desired 2%....

Let's assume for the moment that you are in the rational phases of your personality and can be debated with. GBP's collapse post-Crunch was steeper but did not go as low as the post-Brexit crunch, nor did it last as long.. To gauge the effects of this it may also be productive to look at the 1980's GBP/USD drop (which also did not last long), the 1960's devaluation, or the 1970's oil price spike.

You also (inadvertently) trigger one of my perpetual bugbears: people are *very* bad at assessing risk. Small problems over long periods are as important as brief big problems. Nobody is predicting a huge*1 spoke in inflation, but smaller increases over decades are equally bad. After the 70's oil spike, it took the UK Government twenty years to bring it back down. Once it gets into the system, inflation is very difficult to get out

I believe you are/were a Times writer. There was an article in there yesterday about how devaluing the currency prefigures a fall from power. I assume you have a Times subscription, and you can find it here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleopatra-central-banker-of-egypt-has-a-lesson-for-us-zgqtknd22


*1: define "huge"...

Humans are, indeed, hopeless at assessing some risks. And in normal life, small incremental and persistent risk can do more damage than big temporary spikes. But certain big risks are simply qualitatively different than smaller risks. A short sharp death is different from a long chronic disease.

We were promised Armageddon. It did not happen. Sure, there are still other smaller risks, and they might (stress might) add up to something bit. But they are qualitatively different than Armageddon.

Humans are though the best risk assessing thing that we know of. The least good risk assessing things that we know of are also human of course - they're the rating agency employees.

Those rating agency employees that were good at assessing risk were hired by the vanks for more money...

vanks ?

Nice one. Is that a combination of vampire and bank?

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.

Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments

The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.

It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector

Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...

As they themselves make clear on their website page "where your money goes" !

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

So that's about £1.30 per person per year across the country. Big deal. I'm happy to pay that.

Quite. 'Bread and Circuses' as a spending policy is a bit simplistic, but while not to everyone's tastes entertainment spectacles like this are useful in so many ways. Not least distracting us from our depressingly bitter politics.

malcolmg said:

ThreeQuidder said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects

It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.

Pedant , OK , charity and good causes

It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes

How would the sports be funded in an independent Scotland? A similar model, or through direct taxation, or not at all?

RobD said:

malcolmg said:

ThreeQuidder said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects

It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.

Pedant , OK , charity and good causes

It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes

How would the sports be funded in an independent Scotland? A similar model, or through direct taxation, or not at all?

1p tax on cans of Irn-Bru should do it...

If I want to give 28p to charity, I give 28p to charity rather than spending £1 on a lottery ticket. However I partake in the office syndicate not because I hope or expect to win but out of fear of everyone else winning and buggering off to the Bahamas.

malcolmg said:

Tories just cannot help stealing it and diverting it to their pet projects. Most people will play at some point.

LOL. All taxation is stealing to those taxed who disagree with how the taxes are spent.

I've taken a break from news and politics because post-Brexit I was on overload, plus I'm back coaching rugby (the wife is happy!).

But just to say the Labour coup has been a God-awful cock-up. Terribly poor timing. Suicidal underestimation of the Corbyn-team resolve. A gross over-estimation of any potential support for an alternative candidate among the membership. And a shockingly ill-conceived strategy that culminated in an alternative candidate that even the Blairites aren't fussed about (Smith is a bit of a bland non-entity, isn't he?)...

And the net consequence? A decision by the Corbyn antis in the parliamentary party to form a new grouping of sulkers until the next election.

They've seriously buggered this up.

Who said Tom Watson is a master of mafioso dark arts? The Tories must be loving it. First Watson got rid of Blair and now he's strengthened Corbyn. Doh doh doh!

For me, the best thing Labour can do/hope for is to see things out with Corbyn till the next GE, hope that the post-Brexit governing proves tough for May, with plenty of unpopular decisions, limit the losses in the marginals at the GE, replace Corbyn with Hillary Benn, then start afresh.

I certainly don't think the medium term outlook is bad for Labour. Politics is far more fickle and changeable these days than it's ever been. With a new, reassuring and sensible leader at the helm they can win in 2025. I don't even think their next leader has to be a centrist to win, just somebody who can bring forward the social justice policies without the baggage, disregard and incompetence of the Corbyn regime.

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...

Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers

"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!

malcolmg said:

ThreeQuidder said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

bollox, it was meant for charity and has been stolen by the Tories to fund their pet projects

It was never meant exclusively for charity. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, has existed from the beginning.

Pedant , OK , charity and good causes

It was not meant to buy baubles for some poncy Tory athletes

Poncy Tory athletes like Andy Murray, Mo Farrah and Adam Peaty?

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...

Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers

If I were you I'd stop this particular avenue of discussion. You've already conceded the obvious - if the government spends the money then its government spending.

Time to stop digging. Otherwise you look like the Obama administration - denying until they're blue in the face that the $400 million in cash paid for the released hostages was a ransom, even after conceding that the payment was made as soon as the hostages were released and there was a 'connection' between the two events.

Charles said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

It doesn't. The national lottery is established by law but run by a private consortium. The allocation of funds (ie x% to prizes, y% to taxes, z% goes to good causes of which part is guaranteed to sport, part to various regions etc) is also mandated. About the distribution to individual organisatiobs within those allocations is handled by independent charities - certainly quangos but not public spending per se.

Indeed

kle4 said:

david_herdson said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

So that's about £1.30 per person per year across the country. Big deal. I'm happy to pay that.

Quite. 'Bread and Circuses' as a spending policy is a bit simplistic, but while not to everyone's tastes entertainment spectacles like this are useful in so many ways. Not least distracting us from our depressingly bitter politics.

£1.30 to add to the gaiety of the nation for a few weeks. worth it.

Following on from that example, how about we all chip in to the AV thread fund....

All those complaining about lottery funds used for Team GB success....Millennium Dome...now that was good value for money from the lottery...for AEG that it.

Fenster said:

I've taken a break from news and politics because post-Brexit I was on overload, plus I'm back coaching rugby (the wife is happy!).

But just to say the Labour coup has been a God-awful cock-up. Terribly poor timing. Suicidal underestimation of the Corbyn-team resolve. A gross over-estimation of any potential support for an alternative candidate among the membership. And a shockingly ill-conceived strategy that culminated in an alternative candidate that even the Blairites aren't fussed about (Smith is a bit of a bland non-entity, isn't he?)...

And the net consequence? A decision by the Corbyn antis in the parliamentary party to form a new grouping of sulkers until the next election.

They've seriously buggered this up.

Who said Tom Watson is a master of mafioso dark arts? The Tories must be loving it. First Watson got rid of Blair and now he's strengthened Corbyn. Doh doh doh!

For me, the best thing Labour can do/hope for is to see things out with Corbyn till the next GE, hope that the post-Brexit governing proves tough for May, with plenty of unpopular decisions, limit the losses in the marginals at the GE, replace Corbyn with Hillary Benn, then start afresh.

I certainly don't think the medium term outlook is bad for Labour. Politics is far more fickle and changeable these days than it's ever been. With a new, reassuring and sensible leader at the helm they can win in 2025. I don't even think their next leader has to be a centrist to win, just somebody who can bring forward the social justice policies without the baggage, disregard and incompetence of the Corbyn regime.

The irony (tragedy if you prefer) is that they claimed to have been forced to act because of incompetence and poor leadership....

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...

Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers

"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!

Newsagents do

Not sure what you mean by that? We're talking about the lottery.

Essexit said:

Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?

Just teasing him on his love for the inferior AV system.

Essexit said:

Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?

I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.

david_herdson said:

Omnium said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

Bollox, it is robbery of charity funds.

Do you really buy a lottery ticket for charitable purposes? If that represents even 1% of sales I'd be amazed.

It's a tax. A stupidity tax.

Edit: And I occasionally am stupid enough to play

That's arguable and depends on the motivations and risks of the individual. If they are happy to pay a 50% premium on their return for the (very outside) chance to become a millionaire tomorrow, then it's a rational transaction.

And on occasion - when the rollover has grown large enough - the maths are actually in your favour.

IIRC Richie Rich at Barcap used to buy £150 worth of tickets whenever the rollover hit £70m as that maximised the risk-adjusted return

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

This is an interesting stat

@GerryHassan: #TeamGB's tally of 66 medals cost £5,378,787.88 each in public funding. Value for money or not? Big question. #Rio2016

The responses seem to be split along traditional left/right lines, or perhaps benefit recipient, nett taxpayer lines

There are lots of "should spend the money on foodbanks", but the alternative is "would you rather your tax dollars were spent on Laura Trott or White Dee?"

Note also some dispute about the phrase "public spending"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

All sorts of discretionary spend is taxed, from petrol to alcohol to air travel to carrier bags. It's still a tax you pay.

The government does not levy a tax on the lottery as it does with those goods, it just receives all the proceeds

The government takes £0.9 m lottery duty from the £7.6m of ticket sales

Paid by the licence holder not the buyer

That's splitting hairs. How do you think the license holder pays for it? From ticket sales...

Presumably from ticket sales but not necessarily always and not every ticket buyers purchase may be used to fund that duty whereas other taxes levied on the consumer will be paid by all buyers

"but not necessarily always"? I'm not sure Camelot has many other revenue streams!

Newsagents do

Not sure what you mean by that? We're talking about the lottery.

Yes and most lottery machines are in newsagents

OK, but that doesn't change the fact that money from ticket sales goes to the government as a duty, which you were disputing by claiming the license holder pays for it somehow without passing the cost on to the consumer.

kle4 said:

Essexit said:

Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?

I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.

I fear the thread has been so hyped up that it can no longer be published...

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

TeamGB mathematically guaranteed to finish 2nd in the medal table.

"

Lottery spending is not public spending as such

If the government spends the money it's public spending.

The money comes from voluntary gambling, it is not a tax

It's money obtained by the government from the public - the mechanism by which it arrives there, whether voluntary or compulsory, is not germane. The government is spending the money. That's public spending.

Is it included in the government income and expenditure figures? Not as far as I am aware and a plurality of the money goes to charities not government departments

The government spends the money it obtained from the public, off the books or not. Whether the government spend goes to government departments is nothing to do with anything. Neither is where it goes. It's the spending that's the issue, not the destination.

It is essentially voluntary gambling in private outlets with the proceeds transferred to the government to spend on the third sector

Thanks for agreeing with me - it's government spending.

It is revenue received from private gambling which does not go to the public sector

The government could have established the lottery itself and run it through a government department, or a nationalised industry, deciding itself how to spend the net proceeds. In such circumstances (which I bet exist elsewhere) the money would be coming in and going out exactly the same but it would clearly be public spending.

So the question is whether the nature of the spending really changes because it is delivered by an outsourced route. The broad allocation of funds is set by government, nevertheless, and, whilst individual decisions are taken by the lottery organisation, I would bet that there are plenty of levers the government can pull to make sure the lottery money is spent in its preferred directions; indeed the lottery people themselves will be keen to keep the government happy as they award the franchise.

So it is really significantly different? To an accountant, maybe, but not to the person in the street.

Omnium said:

PlatoSaid said:

david_herdson said:

Britain has just become only the sixth country to finish in the top two of the Olympic medals table since (and including) 1952:

China
USA
USSR/CIS/Russia
E Germany
Romania*
GB

* 1984 games, which USSR and E Germany boycotted.

The sixth lemon before the last one that had the third best colour.

Would you buy this lemon?

Team GB have done wonderfully well.

Would you buy this lemon?

How nice to hear about British Leyland car sales again

Essexit said:

Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?

The latter. Pigs will fly the day before Mr Eagles publishes his Magnum Opus on the Alternative Vote.

RobD said:

kle4 said:

Essexit said:

Would anyone be good enough to explain to a newbie all the references to *The* AV Thread by TSE? Was it a particularly notorious thread, or one that keeps being promised and not materialising?

I was not really around at the time but there were fierce and unending debates on AV in the long run-up to the referendum on it, to the point many, I fear, never wanted to see another mention of AV again in their lives. The threat of another such thread appearing has occasionally reemerged when people are getting riles up, while others, being electoral system aficionados, clamour for yet more discussion of the merits of AV. There have in fact been a few AV threads since, produced at great effort by the inimitable TSE, but rumours persist that the true masterpiece on the subject has yet to emerge.

I fear the thread has been so hyped up that it can no longer be published...

Right, so there was a specific thread or threads. If I've got a long afternoon I'll go to the April/May 2011 archive and enjoy.

Dromedary said:

Trump leads Clinton by 2% in latest poll, LA Times-USC, 14-20 August.

National poll?

I haven't been looking at PB, so probably off target, but a Southampton University lecturer produced a plan for the number choice to maximise return on the lottery. Could adapt it to horse racing I expect... have to look at it sometime.