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

PAW said:

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.

Sandpit 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?

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

PAW said:

RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.

RobD said:

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.

Dromedary said:

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

IanB2 said:

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.

Tim_B said:

Charles 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.

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.

He may agree with you - but he's wrong

If the government spends it then it's public spending. If it doesn't then it probably isn't.

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

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

We weren't talking about newsagents - we were talking about the Lottery. Presumably if the Lottery had kiosks at Heathrow using your logic we could talk of airline revenue streams.

Airlines do not directly run the shops at Heathrow

Yes, and neither do newsagents run the national lottery.

SquareRoot said:

Dromedary said:

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

What was the question..?

SquareRoot said:

Dromedary said:

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

What was the question..?

MTimT 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?

In the run up to the AV referendum, there were innumerable threads on various aspects of AV, and the same issues for and against the various options, vs FPTP and vs each other, were debated in the postings ad nauseum. Everyone was truly fed up with the whole issue and the repetitiveness of the discussion.
Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.

PAW said:

RobD - I think it is ok, I remember the stir in academic circles when it came out, nobody had expected anything useful to come out of a department of mathematics.

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

RobD said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

PAW said:

RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.

Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?

But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)

Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit 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?

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

I've given you two Parvum Opuses this year on AV.

Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left think it is

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/24/electoral-reform-might-not-be-the-panacea-the-left-think-it-is/

and

The EURef might be more like the AV referendum and not the Indyref

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/17/the-euref-might-be-more-like-the-av-referendum-and-not-the-indyref/

2 Parvum opus = 1 Magnum opus

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

Again, that's splitting hairs.

Dromedary said:

RobD said:

Charles said:

RobD said:

PAW said:

RobD - I think it is getting the spread of number optimum for lesser payouts.

Surely if the numbers are random, there can be no system?

But the implied return is improved by avoiding common numbers (at under 31, birth years, lucky numbers, etc)

Ah right, you aren't increasing your chances of winning, just how much you might win if you do. Seems a bit silly to exclude certain numbers though, since winning anything is surely than winning nothing.

In theory any number you choose is equally likely to come up, so why not choose one that's more likely to win you a bigger prize?

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit 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?

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

I've given you two Parvum Opuses this year on AV.

Electoral reform might not be the panacea the left think it is

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/24/electoral-reform-might-not-be-the-panacea-the-left-think-it-is/

and

The EURef might be more like the AV referendum and not the Indyref

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/17/the-euref-might-be-more-like-the-av-referendum-and-not-the-indyref/

2 Parvum opus = 1 Magnum opus

Parva opera please. Goodness, latin grammar has deteriorated since I were a puer.

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

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?

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?

'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?

'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?

'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.' Whether that means newsagents pay the duty to Camelot to pay or not I am not sure
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty

MTimT said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

MTimT 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?

In the run up to the AV referendum, there were innumerable threads on various aspects of AV, and the same issues for and against the various options, vs FPTP and vs each other, were debated in the postings ad nauseum. Everyone was truly fed up with the whole issue and the repetitiveness of the discussion.
Now it is an in joke - both the threat of another thread on the subject (if PBers get too uppity about something) and the idea that there could possibly be something new to add.

There was also the strong opinion said by the pro-AV people that opposing AV was a massive strategic error by the Conservatives and it was going to lead to an End of Days, Chaos and no Conservative Prime Minister ever again. At least one of these statements was an exaggeration but the sentiment was true.

Yes. How quickly we forget how unfairly the electoral system was skewed for Labour. And how quickly that has changed.

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD 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

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

YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK

Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?

'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.'
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty

Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?

I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure

From the explanatory notes:

"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."

That'd be Camelot.

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

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.

The license holder, ie the newsagent, pays it though not the buyer, it is levied in relation to the level of stake money paid in but there is no legal obligation that the duty has to be paid entirely from stake money, some of it could come from a newsagents other revenue

You're being silly again. the liability arises because of lottery sales. Of course money is fungible so there's no way of measuring whether it's exactly the same pound. But that's meaningless.

The liability does arise because of lottery sales yes but again the strict liability is the sellers not the buyers unlike say tax on alcohol or petrol which is levied direct on the buyer when they buy the product

Except the retailers don't pay the duty, otherwise it wouldn't appear in Camelot's accounts, surely?

'If you’re the licence holder for the National Lottery, or you’re running a lottery that’s not listed in the exemptions, you must register for Lottery Duty.'
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/lottery-duty

Ah, maybe there are two seperate duties? otherwise why would both Camelot and the retailer have to report it? Unless the retailer pays it and Camelot reports it?

I would think the latter most likely but I am not sure

From the explanatory notes:

"If you are the Section 5 licence holder as specified in the National Lottery etc Act 1993 for the National Lottery, or you are running a lottery that does not qualify under the exemptions detailed in Section 24(4) of the Finance Act 1993 you should register for lottery duty."

That'd be Camelot.

Whether Camelot pays from the money given by the newsagent or the newsagent pays and it looks like the former, technically it is still not a duty levied directly on the buyer which was the main point

SeanT said:

Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)

She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit

She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion

Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.

Sandpit said:

PAW said:

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.

Does it involve looking at the patterns people use to decide numbers, then doing the exact opposite?

For example humans choosing numbers will gravitate to choosing numbers based on dates, so numbers over 31 are much less likely to be chosen.

To maximise your winnings you want the numbers that no-one else chooses, so the pot is split between fewer winners. It was said that 100k people a week choose 1,2,3,4,5,6 for example, so if that combination ever comes up don't ring you boss and call him a ****!

Would make a good statistics or Sociology Masters' paper.

Scott_P said:

@swingaleg: Labour facing humiliating U-turn over security firm G4S

Another day, another Labour comedy moment. https://t.co/59EbVQ6bJC

"What do you mean, the price has gone up?"

IanB2 said:

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....

SeanT said:

Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)

She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit

She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion

Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.

malcolmg said:

GIN1138 said:

So in other words, the PLP have made complete and utter fools of themselves as expected and now they're looking for a way to back down without losing too much face.

Brilliant!

Afternoon GIN, going to be large amount of donkeys eating humble pie soon.

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)

She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit

She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion

Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.

Corbyn won the leadership by winning 60% of members' votes, so if Smith won by 51% to 49%, 82% of Corbyn's former voters would still have backed him but he would nonetheless lose. Corbyn is clear favourite but his victory is not a certainty

Thrak said:

Single polls are always misleading, do people deliberately post outliers to help their betting position? Doesn't seem fair on those who they seek to mislead.

Anyway, people can check recent polls here -
4 Way - Clinton 5.5% ahead http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

2 Way - Clinton 5.3% ahead
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

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?

Rob, I have no clue but personally would prefer it spent at grass roots rather athn a few elite tossers getting all the cash

What about Tossing the Caber?

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD 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

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

YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK

Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started

Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.

He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury

Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)

She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit

She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion

Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.

Corbyn won the leadership by winning 60% of members' votes, so if Smith won by 51% to 49%, 82% of Corbyn's former voters would still have backed him but he would nonetheless lose. Corbyn is clear favourite but his victory is not a certainty

You can't however just add up all the non-Corbyn votes and hand them to Smith. There will be personal reasons why people supported various of the other candidates last time, and personal reasons why some won't prefer Smith this time. And there will be a lot of members who now see the issue as one of democracy and whether power to choose sits with members or MPs.

GIN1138 said:

malcolmg said:

GIN1138 said:

So in other words, the PLP have made complete and utter fools of themselves as expected and now they're looking for a way to back down without losing too much face.

Brilliant!

Afternoon GIN, going to be large amount of donkeys eating humble pie soon.

Even Malc!

Certainly seems so.

IanB2 said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD 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

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

YES, I don't know Paety but the other two are squillionaires and need no more wonga flung at them. One of them does not even live in the UK

Mo Farrah certainly was not a squillionaire when he started running profesionally which was several years after the lottery was started

Bet he does not get JSA now though and would not hav ebeen on breadline then either , and does he even spend any time in the UK???? Would be nice if government would pay me to go live in the sun.

He was born in Mogadishu in Somalia and lived there until he was eight, that was technically living in the sun too though hardly a life of luxury

Your point is , we spend millions on immigrants as well as locals, does that make you feel good

I think the point is that your wish to live in the sun Is unlikely to be based on a desire to move to Somalia or the Ethiopian mountains...

Thrak said:

Single polls are always misleading, do people deliberately post outliers to help their betting position? Doesn't seem fair on those who they seek to mislead.

Anyway, people can check recent polls here -
4 Way - Clinton 5.5% ahead http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

2 Way - Clinton 5.3% ahead
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

viewcode said:

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

Just spent a *happy* afternoon with my new Corbynite squeeze (25, scientist)

She is a passionate Europhile, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees he is to blame, partly, for Brexit

She is an ardent Labour member, yet will still vote Corbyn, even though she agrees his election, once more, might split the party in a tragic fashion

Conclusion: Corbyn is bound to win. His fans have not deserted him.

Clearly she's not a very good scientist given how poor her logical faculties seem.

It's an experiment. Humans pick their partners using stochastic processing. They form repeated partnerships and compile a list in their heads about who was good and who was bad. Once they feel ready for a longterm relationship they continue dating until they find one that was as good (or close to) the best one they previously discarded, then they select that one. This is why some married people have memories of a former sweetheart who they wish they'd gone with instead. If SeanT's squeeze isn't ready for longterm than she's basically calibrating.