Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The other side of the bet. The ethics of political gambling. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2020 in General
The other side of the bet. The ethics of political gambling. – politicalbetting.com

The first polls are closing and I am absolutely optimistic. pic.twitter.com/ryfTfmJctt

Read the full story here

«13456713

Comments

  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Gambling is part of my make up. 50 years a Liberal / Liberal Democrat.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited December 2020
    Silbermedaille

    Love the use of "one lawyer heroically" rather than "one heroic lawyer".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    4th rate Betfair over their US markets.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited December 2020
    A fun story for Remainers and the hunt might be hotting up.

    https://newsthump.com/2019/12/05/fears-grow-over-fate-of-missing-simpleton-mark-francois/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited December 2020
    FPT

    Gaussian said:

    If we had repeated the March lockdown from Half Term until now we could be slowly opening up for Christmas now.

    The Tories are useless.

    You may well be right that the Tories are useless and Labour are brilliant.

    It is just a pity that all the Labour brilliance did not manifest itself in running a competent COVID response in Wales.

    Looking at England and Wales, it doesn't look like a choice between useless and brilliant.

    It looks like a choice between a crap bloke with blonde hair and a crap bloke with a personality bypass.
    I think you are being harsh on Starmer for the moment, at least

    I did see a BBC Wales debate earlier in the week. I was very impressed with Adam Price. Significantly ess so with Paul Davies.
    Paul Davies has to be a Labour plant. Surely nobody can be as bad as Paul Davies, unless they are doing it deliberately.

    My guess is Paul yearns for a Welsh Labour Government, and he is working day and night to make the Welsh Tories look ridiculous and unelectable.
    Indeed. I believe Paul Davies, ably hindered by RT shoots Ydoethur's fox of Conservatives most seats in May.

    I would like to see an improved performance by PC. I voted for PC at the last Assembly Election only for Leanne to jump under the covers with UKIP, so I am reluctant to do so again, although it is looking possible.
    What's the most likely coalition if Labour, Con and PC all ended up with >15 seats (meaning two of them would be needed for any government)?
    A very good question. I have no idea. PC would I guess be reluctant to join with either. Maybe Labour slightly less unlikely than Johnson's Welsh Tories on the proviso that Price was FM. I am however hopeful that Kirsty holds her seat.
    Kirsty Williams is retiring. Which means Brecon and Radnor is a more or less certain Tory gain. Whether the Liberal Democrats will pick up one on the list is another question, but looking at the collapse in their vote I think it unlikely.

    The next Welsh government will be Labour/Plaid because there is no other realistic combination available short of something truly seismic, which there is no sign of. I don’t know how hard a bargain Price will drive. A smart move might be to put Rhun ab Iorwerth forward as a John Costello style compromise figure for FM. Drakeford should certainly be removed as a sine qua non of support.

    What is probably going to be decisive, as in Georgia, is differential turnout. Here the Tories and Plaid have an advantage. Yes their leaders are weak and the messaging uninspiring and confused, but they’ve done nothing disastrous because they’re in opposition.

    Drakeford, by contrast, has a string of extraordinary fiascos to defend. It’s not just the COVID stuff, his entire administration is a shambles. For example, he needs to explain how the former Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire Council can admit to fraud, perjury and embezzlement in open court, be arrested by police, be under investigation along with Swansea University for malfeasance, be backed by the council - and that council not be suspended. And that is the tip of a very nasty iceberg in local government. He also needs to explain a shambolic health service and a fading education system.

    If you were a Labour voter, would you turn out after all this? Quite possibly not, given they’re expected to win anyway. And that may be a problem.

    I don’t say the Tories will get most seats. But they have the second largest voter base by a clear margin and it isn’t massively smaller than Labour’s now. I can see pathways for them getting 24 seats to Labour’s 23.

    They won’t be in government, but such a result would be a start to dismantling Welsh Labour’s disastrous hegemony.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Great article.. As you say, we're still taking some risk, however minuscule. A coup as you say even though we think that Trump clearly doesn't have the support of the judges and generals to pull that off.

    Or some kind of rules cuck where Betfair decide to interpret the rules differently again e.g. what if Pence or Kamala became president and they decided to settle for them (not entirely impossible to see them doing that since they already broke their rules).

    Trump bettors would have certainly gloated a lot.

    The area where it becomes morally wrong is with regard to genuine problem gamblers who are losing a lot of money that they can't afford, and consistently - lives ruined, turning to crime. Your article puts the buck on the bookmakers and exchanges for that which I guess, fair enough.

    Where I feel somewhat uncomfortable, even as I fully take advantage, is that I know for a fact that they don't *truly* care. E.g. even though I'm in good net profit at both smarkets and Betfair exchange, I've suddenly had 'regulation' questions about my gambling. Yet when I had a bigger exposure before the election, or when I lost thousands, I never got those questions. They also approve big deposits or exposures *before* asking such questions which seems like the wrong way around to do things. It makes me wonder if they're using those 'regulations' to try to get rid of successful gamblers while.. conveniently overlooking or not tackling the real problem gamblers. The whole thing has felt dubious to me.

    I read a stat that apparently the bookies have made 60% of their profits from a small amount of 'problem gamblers'. So if they genuinely cared to tackle the problem gamblers... that would clearly mean a big hit to their profits. (Yet they still would probably turn a good profit - the profits that the bookies make are just staggering... I recall that bet365 was in the news for that this year.)

    All in all, the government has clearly wanted the bookies to self-regulate but they don't or can't which appears to be the reason for this next round of gambling crackdowns.

    Gambling in the UK is out of control and the bookies/exchanges find all sorts of ways to push out successful bettors so I can't say that I have a lot of sympathy. Get rid of VIP schemes, advertising, limit losses on casino games (no skill there), promo sign ups, bonuses, I would be happy about a lot of these things. There is a reason why in Monaco local citizens as well as the actual royal family are prohibited from gambling despite Monaco's famous casino industry.

    The Monaco story is interesting. It always seems to me a little too paternal particularly because it doesn't apply to non Monegasque residents.
  • An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Has Farage ever showed judgement? History will record his record as one of failure.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061
    As a Christian, I am troubled by gambling as a problem, and one of my oldest friends once had a serious gambling problem that adversely impacted on his family.

    I bet only on politics, and football and rarely on specials such as the Oscars or Eurovision. Clearly though the bookies do try to push people to more addictive games of chance such as FOBT and online games. Indeed some bookies websites keep pushing those.

    Is there such a thing as ethical gambling? Probably not, but I do find bet365 better than most. They don't have high st shops or push online games and their football odds are good. Ladbrokes has good political markets, but I get fed up with their free spins type of promotions, and having to swipe through ads to get to the right markets.

    Betfair, I find OK, if slow to settle, but Paddypower seem very restrictive on stakes for people who actually win sometimes. They clearly only want perpetual losers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    Foxy said:

    As a Christian, I am troubled by gambling as a problem, and one of my oldest friends once had a serious gambling problem that adversely impacted on his family.

    I bet only on politics, and football and rarely on specials such as the Oscars or Eurovision. Clearly though the bookies do try to push people to more addictive games of chance such as FOBT and online games. Indeed some bookies websites keep pushing those.

    Is there such a thing as ethical gambling? Probably not, but I do find bet365 better than most. They don't have high st shops or push online games and their football odds are good. Ladbrokes has good political markets, but I get fed up with their free spins type of promotions, and having to swipe through ads to get to the right markets.

    Betfair, I find OK, if slow to settle, but Paddypower seem very restrictive on stakes for people who actually win sometimes. They clearly only want perpetual losers.

    They should rope Donald Trump and the Republicans in...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    As far as political gambling in general is concerned, the lead makes the good points.

    There clearly is considered to be an ethical limit, because we have seen the betting companies suspend their markets when leading politicians have been ill, preventing gamblers from effectively gambling on the outcome of their illness. In such circumstances there has appeared to be a good chance that in the event of death the whole market would have been voided.

    Thus while a whole range of personal circumstances and life events can be factored into punters’ assessments of whether leading politicians can achieve or retain high office, their potential health prospects appears to be excluded.

    This becomes relevant when you consider that Betfair had (and, less clearly, still is) for many weeks been allowing punters to bet on the prospects of a coup in the US. I was going to use the word ‘illegal’, but of course this becomes a grey area when the law might itself have been subverted to achieve the coup.

    If you imagine an equivalent in the UK - for example a hypothetical Corbyn landslide in either 2017 or 2019 followed by a Lord Mountbatten style army coup of the sort portrayed as having been considered in the 70s by ‘The Crown’ - would a Corbyn ‘next PM’ bet pay out (the BFE rules likely having been met), not pay out because he never became PM, or would the market be voided? My bet is on the latter.

    The chances are that any such coup - either in the US or UK - would have its violent dimension very likely leading to some deaths.

    Allowing people to bet on such a scenario in the US does not seem ethnically more justifiable than betting on a politician’s health.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    "but ministers insisted that no decisions have been made."

    Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    I'm not sure if I was Patel I'd pick a fight with Burnham. As accomplished a populist as there is at the moment. Patel on the other hand is as popular as a Pangolin,
  • Roger said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    I'm not sure if I was Patel I'd pick a fight with Burnham. As accomplished a populist as there is at the moment. Patel on the other hand is as popular as a Pangolin,
    You obviously missed Burnham overseeing his local police force being a joke.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2020

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    Hilary Benn...is just trying to be helpful, just not for the UK side. Has been the case since Brexit.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    I'm not sure if I was Patel I'd pick a fight with Burnham. As accomplished a populist as there is at the moment. Patel on the other hand is as popular as a Pangolin,
    You obviously missed Burnham overseeing his local police force being a joke.
    Is that how it looked? Without knowing too much about it. It seemed to me he looked like a politician being decisive. Quite rare at the moment.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    You win the award for the most bizarre response of 2020
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2020
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    I'm not sure if I was Patel I'd pick a fight with Burnham. As accomplished a populist as there is at the moment. Patel on the other hand is as popular as a Pangolin,
    You obviously missed Burnham overseeing his local police force being a joke.
    Is that how it looked? Without knowing too much about it. It seemed to me he looked like a politician being decisive. Quite rare at the moment.
    I am sure you would be saying the same when Patel fires people when the shit hits the fan under her watch.

    The reason Burnham has ended up as Mayor of Manchester is he is crap at actually running anything.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    "but ministers insisted that no decisions have been made."

    Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
    I don’t know. It’s not like their confusion, incoherence and constant chopping and changing doesn’t emphasise it enough.
  • Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    Traitors, one might say..
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2020
    ydoethur said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    "but ministers insisted that no decisions have been made."

    Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
    I don’t know. It’s not like their confusion, incoherence and constant chopping and changing doesn’t emphasise it enough.
    Its always the same, always reactive to a problem, never proactive and always spend those few extra days dragging out any decision, like a teenager told no pocket money until they have cleaned their room.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Scott_xP said:
    Some good points made by the Select Committee which Johnson's Government need to address asap. It's typical Johnson to try and wing it and miss vital detail. Detail which must be incorporated even at this late stage into negotiations.

    Select Committees are there to scrutinise Government, something Johnson absolutely hates.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    rcs1000 said:

    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.

    Why would you use fillet steak to cut it? That’s what steak knives are for.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    "but ministers insisted that no decisions have been made."

    Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
    Because otherwise they would look even more indecisive?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    ydoethur said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    "but ministers insisted that no decisions have been made."

    Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
    I don’t know. It’s not like their confusion, incoherence and constant chopping and changing doesn’t emphasise it enough.
    Its always the same, always reactive to a problem, never proactive and always spend those few extra days dragging out any decision, like a teenager told no pocket money until they have cleaned their room.
    This article is, to put it mildly, damning about their incompetence:

    https://www.tes.com/news/why-its-time-teachers-start-saying-no
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    You win the award for the most bizarre response of 2020
    Like waiting for a concert to start. There's complete silence in the hall. Just the occasional ping of a violin. Then someone in the audience farts and the orchestra packs up its instruments and goes home
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited December 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.

    Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.

    Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    IanB2 said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    "but ministers insisted that no decisions have been made."

    Why do Ministers feel they have to emphasise that they are indecisive wazzocks?
    Because otherwise they would look even more indecisive?
    It may just be it’s because that’s the only thing they’re good at.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited December 2020

    rcs1000 said:

    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.

    Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.

    Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
    Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    It’s hardly a well kept secret. The pitiful failure of the conservatives to put us in a position of readiness over four and a half years is on display for all to see.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    Traitors, one might say..
    In any well regulated dictatorship they would be dragged out and summarily executed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    As a Christian, I am troubled by gambling as a problem, and one of my oldest friends once had a serious gambling problem that adversely impacted on his family.

    I bet only on politics, and football and rarely on specials such as the Oscars or Eurovision. Clearly though the bookies do try to push people to more addictive games of chance such as FOBT and online games. Indeed some bookies websites keep pushing those.

    Is there such a thing as ethical gambling? Probably not, but I do find bet365 better than most. They don't have high st shops or push online games and their football odds are good. Ladbrokes has good political markets, but I get fed up with their free spins type of promotions, and having to swipe through ads to get to the right markets.

    Betfair, I find OK, if slow to settle, but Paddypower seem very restrictive on stakes for people who actually win sometimes. They clearly only want perpetual losers.

    There isn’t anything intrinsically unethical about gambling - it’s like any form of entertainment where you pay money for a dopamine rush.

    There is something unethical about TV businesses trying to maximise revenues by pushing the wrong sort of games at people who can’t afford to lose
  • Chris said:

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    Traitors, one might say..
    In any well regulated dictatorship they would be dragged out and summarily executed.
    It's a great comfort, Brexitania prevented from being a totalitarian hellhole by virtue of having incompetent and indecisive fuds in charge.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    As a Christian, I am troubled by gambling as a problem, and one of my oldest friends once had a serious gambling problem that adversely impacted on his family.

    I bet only on politics, and football and rarely on specials such as the Oscars or Eurovision. Clearly though the bookies do try to push people to more addictive games of chance such as FOBT and online games. Indeed some bookies websites keep pushing those.

    Is there such a thing as ethical gambling? Probably not, but I do find bet365 better than most. They don't have high st shops or push online games and their football odds are good. Ladbrokes has good political markets, but I get fed up with their free spins type of promotions, and having to swipe through ads to get to the right markets.

    Betfair, I find OK, if slow to settle, but Paddypower seem very restrictive on stakes for people who actually win sometimes. They clearly only want perpetual losers.

    There isn’t anything intrinsically unethical about gambling - it’s like any form of entertainment where you pay money for a dopamine rush.

    There is something unethical about TV businesses trying to maximise revenues by pushing the wrong sort of games at people who can’t afford to lose
    Or alternatively it’s merely an accelerated and distilled version of lots of decisions we take ordinarily in the rest of our lives, betting our money and reputations on jobs or business ventures or investments or social endeavours, waiting years to see if our judgement leads to a payoff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited December 2020
    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An announcement could be made as soon as Saturday about how ministers plan to try to contain the new threat, with particular concerns about the risks of cross-UK travel in the run-up to Christmas.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

    I'm not sure if I was Patel I'd pick a fight with Burnham. As accomplished a populist as there is at the moment. Patel on the other hand is as popular as a Pangolin,
    You obviously missed Burnham overseeing his local police force being a joke.
    Is that how it looked? Without knowing too much about it. It seemed to me he looked like a politician being decisive. Quite rare at the moment.
    I am sure you would be saying the same when Patel fires people when the shit hits the fan under her watch.

    The reason Burnham has ended up as Mayor of Manchester is he is crap at actually running anything.
    Just like Johnson then
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    I don't really approve of gambling and don't do it to any material extent. What I have observed is that many people, including members of my family and friends have an addictive personality. The nature of that addiction changes over time whether drugs, drink, sex or gambling but it is almost inevitably destructive not only to the person afflicted but all those around them. Those afflicted with that personality type tend to be obsessives and the nature of their addiction can change but there are clear patterns that are repeated.

    Being a boring old fart by inclination I do not suffer an addictive personality. I consider myself extremely fortunate in that respect, it is using Alastair's analogies almost entirely a matter of chance with no skill involved. But I have seen enough to empathise and be concerned with those afflicted and I certainly would not want to take advantage of it even, possibly particularly, when their beliefs are irrational.

    "Material extent" means to me that I have no problem with the odd fun bet for a stake of no consequence. I have had a few bets with people through this site but never for more than £50. I have an account with Wm Hills but I rarely use it. If those who are less boring than me get fun out of gambling and can avoid the perils of addiction good luck to them but its not for me and on balance I think I am happier that way.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    The schools being open were critical in getting those who couldn’t or from home back to work, using the education system as a child care facility. I remember several posters on here claiming they were desperate for the kids to go back so they could work. Nothing this government does is for the reasons given.
  • Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea
  • On topic, here is a copy of the letter I sent last nite to the Gambling Commission. Sorry about the length.


    Hi James. I write further to my email of 4th December and our earlier telephone conversation of 2nd December.

    So Betfair finally settled its outstanding US election markets on 14th December following the announcement of the Electoral College votes on that day and I got my money along with everybody else who was green on Biden. Am I happy then? Well, in respect of the money, yes, but in many other respects not at all. My returns amounted to about £10k of which about £1k was profit so you can see that I made my money by backing Biden at very short odds, mostly after the result had been called by Associated Press and all the major Networks. Normally I wouldn't give a thought to losing parties because they have as much chance as me of making a winning bet but on this occasion I confess to much sympathy with all those who backed Trump after the election had been called and before the date Betfair settled, over a month later. I guess you would understand why. They were betting on an event that was over. You can argue perhaps that they were gullible to do so but there is no excuse for Betfair to encourage them. Betfair has a duty of care to their customers and the idea that they would disregard that and take commission from a market kept open long past its proper settlement date leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I like to win but I don't like to see any punter taken for a ride and that appears to be what happened to Trump-backers from about November 7th, by which time the projected electoral votes had been announced, and December 14th when Betfair suspended the markets and began to settle them.

    There are other reasons for disapproving of Betfair's behaviour. Obviously gambling becomes chaotic and dangerous when a major trader, running a major market, changes the rules after the event. Where the sums are substantial, and in this case the amounts matched were I believe close to £2billion, unstable secondary markets are apt to form quite probably to the benefit of money-launderers rather than ordinary punters, as well as the disadvantage of newcomers to betting who might assume that a market would not continue to be traded if the outcome of the event were already established.... [cont'd]

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    Given that there is a fair bit of evidence that the Government are seriously worried about the lack of preparedness, and to some extent are blaming individual businesses themselves for not taking necessary steps in the assumption that everything will all get sorted out, you would think that Government supporters would want the message getting out as far and and wide and a publicly as possible.

    The EU knows how unprepared we are. It seems that many businesses do not. Or are wishing it away.

    Not that this is their fault of course. They are being asked to invest time and money to "prepare" for the unknown, for IT systems that aren't built yet, for trading rules that aren't finalised, for customs barriers that aren't resourced, and for shortages in supply chains that they can't control.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Apart from the fact the market is on Betfair what possible reason is there for me to to put all my remaining stake money left on there into the Trump Exit 2 market?

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.138799270
  • [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    Well done. Excellent letter.

    Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    Well its just stupid. Where on earth do we get a SoS for Education who could be so stupid? Well, Gavin Williamson obviously. Really, he has to go.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    edited December 2020
    I note the medic on R4 now is talking about "virulence" as meaning how badly it hits you or kills you. Not speed of transmission. Sub-editors take note.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    Well its just stupid. Where on earth do we get a SoS for Education who could be so stupid? Well, Gavin Williamson obviously. Really, he has to go.
    Nick Gibb is worse. And Susan Acland-Hood and Amanda Spielmann are never going to win IQ contests.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
  • Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    Is that the committee’s fault or the Government’s?

    Replace Tory for Labour. Would people be jumping up and down then?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Scott_xP said:
    At THE most crucial moment in the negotiations that will govern this country's trading relationships for decades to come, how is this intervention supposed to do anything other than offer succour to the EU's negotiators?

    STFU, you pillocks.
    Hilary Benn...is just trying to be helpful, just not for the UK side. Has been the case since Brexit.
    Last opportunity for the Forces of Remain to bump their gums. Their sense of "national inerest" seems to have a confused notion of which nation they are protecting.
  • F1: good morning, everyone.

    Free £1 Ladbrokes bet today. Already put tiny sums on Ferrari/McLaren for the Constructors' next year, so decided to slap it on Red Bull at 4. The Verstappen/Perez lineup could be good enough.

    If I hadn't made a bet then the slightly longer Ferrari odds (13, had been around 12) would've probably been my pick.
  • Lockdown 3.0 in Jan is on a knife edge says Hunt. Tier 3 not enough.
  • Foxy said:

    As a Christian, I am troubled by gambling as a problem, and one of my oldest friends once had a serious gambling problem that adversely impacted on his family.

    I bet only on politics, and football and rarely on specials such as the Oscars or Eurovision. Clearly though the bookies do try to push people to more addictive games of chance such as FOBT and online games. Indeed some bookies websites keep pushing those.

    Is there such a thing as ethical gambling? Probably not, but I do find bet365 better than most. They don't have high st shops or push online games and their football odds are good. Ladbrokes has good political markets, but I get fed up with their free spins type of promotions, and having to swipe through ads to get to the right markets.

    Betfair, I find OK, if slow to settle, but Paddypower seem very restrictive on stakes for people who actually win sometimes. They clearly only want perpetual losers.

    The extended and extensive East End family in which I grew up was steeped in gambling. Betting and bookmaking was part of the social fabric. Although the number of relatives I would count as family well exceeded a hundred I cannot think of one who had a better problem. I suppose I came to think of it in much the same way as I think of alcohol. If you are brought up with it, are taught to imbibe in moderation and warned of its dangers you are less likely to become addicted.

    Alistair is right though that unlike drinking, betting is a zero-sum game. Any game that gives the other guy effectively zero chance is ethically questionable. Any organisation that encourages mugs to make hopeless bets should be reined in.

    Looking at the state of the betting industry in the UK I should say Parliament and the Gambling Commission have a fair bit of work to do.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,735

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?

    Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.

    We need a deal. It must be done now.

    Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 793
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    The English lockdown, the Welsh firebreak and level 4 in Glasgow have all demonstrated that it is possible to push R significantly below 1 while keeping the schools open. Sadly it doesn't seem to be possible to open much more than that without the virus resurging though, at least in densely populated areas, so if the new strain really is more transmissible we could be back in March lockdown territory.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    Gaussian said:

    If we had repeated the March lockdown from Half Term until now we could be slowly opening up for Christmas now.

    The Tories are useless.

    You may well be right that the Tories are useless and Labour are brilliant.

    It is just a pity that all the Labour brilliance did not manifest itself in running a competent COVID response in Wales.

    Looking at England and Wales, it doesn't look like a choice between useless and brilliant.

    It looks like a choice between a crap bloke with blonde hair and a crap bloke with a personality bypass.
    I think you are being harsh on Starmer for the moment, at least

    I did see a BBC Wales debate earlier in the week. I was very impressed with Adam Price. Significantly ess so with Paul Davies.
    Paul Davies has to be a Labour plant. Surely nobody can be as bad as Paul Davies, unless they are doing it deliberately.

    My guess is Paul yearns for a Welsh Labour Government, and he is working day and night to make the Welsh Tories look ridiculous and unelectable.
    Indeed. I believe Paul Davies, ably hindered by RT shoots Ydoethur's fox of Conservatives most seats in May.

    I would like to see an improved performance by PC. I voted for PC at the last Assembly Election only for Leanne to jump under the covers with UKIP, so I am reluctant to do so again, although it is looking possible.
    What's the most likely coalition if Labour, Con and PC all ended up with >15 seats (meaning two of them would be needed for any government)?
    A very good question. I have no idea. PC would I guess be reluctant to join with either. Maybe Labour slightly less unlikely than Johnson's Welsh Tories on the proviso that Price was FM. I am however hopeful that Kirsty holds her seat.
    Kirsty Williams is retiring. Which means Brecon and Radnor is a more or less certain Tory gain. Whether the Liberal Democrats will pick up one on the list is another question, but looking at the collapse in their vote I think it unlikely.

    The next Welsh government will be Labour/Plaid because there is no other realistic combination available short of something truly seismic, which there is no sign of. I don’t know how hard a bargain Price will drive. A smart move might be to put Rhun ab Iorwerth forward as a John Costello style compromise figure for FM. Drakeford should certainly be removed as a sine qua non of support.

    What is probably going to be decisive, as in Georgia, is differential turnout. Here the Tories and Plaid have an advantage. Yes their leaders are weak and the messaging uninspiring and confused, but they’ve done nothing disastrous because they’re in opposition.

    Drakeford, by contrast, has a string of extraordinary fiascos to defend. It’s not just the COVID stuff, his entire administration is a shambles. For example, he needs to explain how the former Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire Council can admit to fraud, perjury and embezzlement in open court, be arrested by police, be under investigation along with Swansea University for malfeasance, be backed by the council - and that council not be suspended. And that is the tip of a very nasty iceberg in local government. He also needs to explain a shambolic health service and a fading education system.

    If you were a Labour voter, would you turn out after all this? Quite possibly not, given they’re expected to win anyway. And that may be a problem.

    I don’t say the Tories will get most seats. But they have the second largest voter base by a clear margin and it isn’t massively smaller than Labour’s now. I can see pathways for them getting 24 seats to Labour’s 23.

    They won’t be in government, but such a result would be a start to dismantling Welsh Labour’s disastrous hegemony.
    Thanks for the response. I believe poor Covid responses and the financial aftermaths will hurt incumbents across Europe. Therefore, Johnson's Covid performance handicaps the Tories as much as Drakeford's does for Labour. I agree also with @YBarddCwsc that Paul Davies can only be a Labour Trojan horse. The mere fact that Paul and Andrew RT Davies are the faces of the Welsh Conservatives is bad enough, but when they open their mouths the utter nonsense emitted loses vote after vote.

    Conservatives most seats is not beyond the realms of possibly, and Drakeford has a few months yet to lower his competence bar still further. There may be a bounce for the Tories with Boris' vaccine (I am surprised that hasn't been seen yet) and his awesome Brexit deal, but for me the stars are not aligning. As a disillusioned Labour voter, I rate Adam Price, but I lent Leanne my vote last time, only for her to attempt a rainbow pact with UKIP and RT.

    I was unaware Kirsty was off to pastures new. I really like her.
  • "New figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest half of adults across the country are planning to form a Christmas bubble."

    Telegraph
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    You can compare to a football goalscorer market, where most bookies settle according to the Press Association announced result - and any subsequent decision about who the goal is really awarded to is ignored. You might be annoyed if the player you backed is later awarded a goal, but the rules are clear.

    Perhaps Betfair, more used to sports betting, had something like this in mind. They could have defined it as projected winner of EC when eg ABC, NBC and Fox News all agree on this, with further rules on how to handle it if they don't all agree. This would avoid having to wait for any court cases, coups, deaths, resignations, alien invasions - but would need to be clearly highlighted to anyone betting.
  • Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    They're only doing their job, scrutinising government actions and offering suggestions for improvement. Those claiming they're acting against the national interest just can't handle the truth about their pet policy. The fact we are facing a choice between a shit deal and a disastrous no deal can be laid squarely at the feet of the government and their Brexit cheerleaders.
  • Lockdown 3.0 in Jan is on a knife edge says Hunt. Tier 3 not enough.

    Tories should have gone with Hunt, a serious politician with a firm grasp on reality. I am quite sure that we would have had a much better Covid response with him in charge.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    A good representation.

    You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    Well done. Excellent letter.

    Hopefully BF will be clearer next time. Much better to simply say they pay out on day ECV meets. Or say the 'projected' vote will be what Assoc Press say on the night of the election is their projected vote.
    Or just actually pay out on who the next president is, as implied by the title of the market?

    Betfair seems to love these misleading markets, with titles that imply one thing (such as "will there be a no deal Brexit") that, when you read the small print, are actually about something different - with time limits not mentioned at all in the title, or defining 'no deal' in ways that significantly change the bet.
  • Lockdown 3.0 in Jan is on a knife edge says Hunt. Tier 3 not enough.

    Tories should have gone with Hunt, a serious politician with a firm grasp on reality. I am quite sure that we would have had a much better Covid response with him in charge.
    Yep. Certainly there would have been far more consistency than Johnson's constant flailing around.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    Roger said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.

    Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.

    Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
    Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
    I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
  • Scott_xP said:

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?

    Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.

    We need a deal. It must be done now.

    Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
    But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.

    Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    alex_ said:

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    Given that there is a fair bit of evidence that the Government are seriously worried about the lack of preparedness, and to some extent are blaming individual businesses themselves for not taking necessary steps in the assumption that everything will all get sorted out, you would think that Government supporters would want the message getting out as far and and wide and a publicly as possible.

    The EU knows how unprepared we are. It seems that many businesses do not. Or are wishing it away.

    Not that this is their fault of course. They are being asked to invest time and money to "prepare" for the unknown, for IT systems that aren't built yet, for trading rules that aren't finalised, for customs barriers that aren't resourced, and for shortages in supply chains that they can't control.
    The government advertising campaign to business, which has been wall to wall at times on commercial radio, must be one of the most risible PR efforts ever managed by a government. Telling them to "get ready" and directing them to a website, when neither the government nor their website can answer the most basic questions about what precisely will be the rules and paperwork required at the end of the month, and when the government is patently not ready itself.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    They're only doing their job, scrutinising government actions and offering suggestions for improvement. Those claiming they're acting against the national interest just can't handle the truth about their pet policy. The fact we are facing a choice between a shit deal and a disastrous no deal can be laid squarely at the feet of the government and their Brexit cheerleaders.
    It’s an all party committee isn’t it? Therefore you’ll have to shoot the Tory’s on it as well
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 793

    Lockdown 3.0 in Jan is on a knife edge says Hunt. Tier 3 not enough.

    Well add a tier 4 then you pillocks, and apply it to London and surrounds asap.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    "New figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest half of adults across the country are planning to form a Christmas bubble."

    Telegraph

    That's one big bubble!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585

    Lockdown 3.0 in Jan is on a knife edge says Hunt. Tier 3 not enough.

    Tories should have gone with Hunt, a serious politician with a firm grasp on reality. I am quite sure that we would have had a much better Covid response with him in charge.
    Johnson really wasn't the man for the moment. Mrs May, and I say this with a heavy heart, would have been streets ahead. So Hunt, yes, absolutely.

    What is it with Johnson electioneering at an Openreach depot in Bolton mid pandemic (spreading his new Southern super-virus to the good people of Greater Burnham) and three and a half years out from the next General Election?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,393
    The Prime Minister has spoken:

    "Our experts were seriously worried that there would be a jump in cases over Christmas... We therefore had to act,"

    That would be the PM of Italy, not Bozo.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Roger said:
    I thought he could be out in the open again?
  • The Prime Minister has spoken:

    "Our experts were seriously worried that there would be a jump in cases over Christmas... We therefore had to act,"

    That would be the PM of Italy, not Bozo.

    Let's see what happens at the likely press event tonight at 5pm.
  • IanB2 said:

    [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    A good representation.

    You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
    IanB2 said:

    [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    A good representation.

    You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
    IBAS contributed some wise and valuable comments on the US Presidential betting, principally with Betfair in mind but also with a much wider application. They made a very clear distinction between rules for the purposes of betting and the general societal rules embodied in laws and constitutions.

    It is entirely reasonable, they said, for betting rules to be defined in a way that provides a quick and clear outcome. This is no doubt what Betfair had in mind when they framed the Next President rules. They were written so that the results could be determined quickly, probably within a few days of the election and without having to wait for Trump to concede or legal challenges to work their way through the system. They were good rules in this respect, although they ought perhaps to have been more explicit as to what they meant by 'projected electoral college votes'.

    Betfair's problem arose not from bad rules, but from changing them after the event. I don't think anybody has a problem seeing what was wrong with that, legally and ethically.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    Lockdown 3.0 in Jan is on a knife edge says Hunt. Tier 3 not enough.

    Tories should have gone with Hunt, a serious politician with a firm grasp on reality. I am quite sure that we would have had a much better Covid response with him in charge.
    Johnson really wasn't the man for the moment. Mrs May, and I say this with a heavy heart, would have been streets ahead. So Hunt, yes, absolutely.

    What is it with Johnson electioneering at an Openreach depot in Bolton mid pandemic (spreading his new Southern super-virus to the good people of Greater Burnham) and three and a half years out from the next General Election?
    He wants to show off the hi-vis jacket Carrie's bought him for Christmas?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    So the Tory members of the committee assuredly refused to accept the report's conclusions, made their own submission, and protested vigorously about the consequences of publication prior to 31 December? Do you have a link?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    They're only doing their job, scrutinising government actions and offering suggestions for improvement. Those claiming they're acting against the national interest just can't handle the truth about their pet policy. The fact we are facing a choice between a shit deal and a disastrous no deal can be laid squarely at the feet of the government and their Brexit cheerleaders.
    The question is whether their statement now encourages the other side to hold out, sensing (wrongly I think) weakness on our side. I think it does and so gives a push towards your 'disastrous no-deal'.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited December 2020
    stjohn said:

    Roger said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.

    Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.

    Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
    Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
    I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
    I went to the doctor and said - raising my arm - "It hurts when I do this."

    "Well don't do it then."
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    stjohn said:

    Roger said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Mysticrose

    On your recommendation, I had Fillet Steak tonight. I'm sorry. It didn't cut it.

    Oh I'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it. Was it cured for a sufficient length of time? I like mine to be 30-day cured. I coat it with a little olive oil for an hour or two in the fridge then lightly seasoned and straight onto the hot griddle. 2 mins either side max 3 mins.

    Horses for courses then. Although I suspect we'd both agree about horse steak. Tends to be very tough. A bit like hippopotamus which I've eaten. Appropriately, as in Greek the latter means 'river horse.'
    Tommy Cooper; I tried to have filet steak tonight. I didn't cut it.
    I went to the butchers the other day and I bet him 50 quid that he couldn't reach the meat off the top shelf. He said, “No, the steaks are too high."
    I went to the doctor and said - raising my arm - "It hurts when I do this."

    "Well don't do it then."
    You need to be Tommy Cooper to make that one fly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    A good representation.

    You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
    IanB2 said:

    [cont'd]

    Some Trump-backers were dismayed, I understand, when their bets were deemed losers on Dec 14th because they were of the view that the means of appeal, protests, legal challenges and the like had some way to run; nor had their man done anything to suggest he was yet ready to concede. Again, I sympathise. Whilst it always appeared exceedingly unlikely any of these protests would overturn the result, I should say that once Betfair had decided not to settle on the date the election was called for Biden, there was no particular logic in them settling on the 14th December since it had no bearing on the 'projected electoral college votes'. The relevance of this date to the political process is that it signifies the point at which projected votes become actual (although even then there are further procedural elements of confirming the next US President with which constitutional experts and some punters are familiar). What Betfair and nobody else can explain is how and why for the purposes of the betting markets the 'actual' date for casting the college votes came to supplant the date of 'projected' votes referred to very clearly in Betfair's market rules. Once the switch from 'projected' to 'actual' was made however there was every reason for Trump-backers to question the finality of the outcome and point to the various appeals, objections and Trump's refusal to concede as evidence that the actual result was still contestable.

    In short, once Betfair moved the goalposts the date of market-settlement became unclear, indefinite and open to debate. I might think that Trump has zero chance of being re-elected as President, but I can certainly see why those who backed him to do so feel miffed that Betfair have ruled against them before every conceivable possibility has been exhausted. In fact I do not see how Betfair can remove their grievances without admitting they were wrong to shift the goalposts in the first place.

    I do not know what, if anything , the Gambling Commission can or will do about all this, but I nevertheless have conveyed my thoughts in the hope that you can bring these matters to Betfair's attention. At the very least it might encourage them to frame their rules better in future, stick to the rules they have framed, and show greater respect to reasonable complaints from their customers. Anything you can do to bring this about will be much appreciated.

    Warm regards, thanks and good luck.

    Peter Smith

    A good representation.

    You do wonder why BFE didn't simply make the market on who would be installed as the president in January (or at any earlier date if Trump relinquished), rather than produce convoluted rules relating to projected votes. That's what punters thought they were betting on, as the bets for Harris and Pelosi and Pence etc. surely indicate.
    IBAS contributed some wise and valuable comments on the US Presidential betting, principally with Betfair in mind but also with a much wider application. They made a very clear distinction between rules for the purposes of betting and the general societal rules embodied in laws and constitutions.

    It is entirely reasonable, they said, for betting rules to be defined in a way that provides a quick and clear outcome. This is no doubt what Betfair had in mind when they framed the Next President rules. They were written so that the results could be determined quickly, probably within a few days of the election and without having to wait for Trump to concede or legal challenges to work their way through the system. They were good rules in this respect, although they ought perhaps to have been more explicit as to what they meant by 'projected electoral college votes'.

    Betfair's problem arose not from bad rules, but from changing them after the event. I don't think anybody has a problem seeing what was wrong with that, legally and ethically.
    I disagree - they are presenting their customers with an apparently clear proposition in bold on their website - bet on "who will be the next president?" - and then defining within the small print how it will be adjudicated in a way that very many of those placing bets will be both unaware and not expecting.

    I agree with your proposition that they have taken many of the late backers of Trump for a ride.

    I'd also argue that those who backed Pence or Pelosi or Harris, based on perfectly reasonable inferences from the way BFE presented the bet, have also been taken for a ride.
  • Roger said:

    Problem gambling is something I hadn't come across before until one day a couple of years ago someone close to me called and asked if we could meet. Their partner had gambled £29,000. It was apparently a simple thing that could be done on a mobile phone. I wasn't really interested in the mechanics. Apparently he had been a bit depressed and it quickly mounted up. He had and has a good job. I took the view that it was only money and it could be sorted. Their relationship was a matter for them and as far as I know it's never happened again. But I never thought to blame the online bookies whoever they were or whatever the game they had peddled but the big question for me was how he managed to get that sort of credit so easily

    Sounds like a one-off, but the bookies do have a duty of care, just as a publican has a duty not to serve a man who has already had too much to drink.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 193
    Unbelievable some of the nanny state comments following this article.Whether gambling is right or wrong for an individual depends on how the individual chooses to gamble.Nobody can be unaware of the dangers of gambling.They feature in so many soap operas,films,books etc.The benefits of gambling are less well known to the many people who have never or rarely gambled themselves.
    The interesting thing is that sometimes they crossover.Betting slightly more than i can afford to lose getting goosepimps and the bet winning is one of the most exciting feelings one can experience.If the bet loses one hopes to learn something about oneself or the world.Technically betting more than one can afford to lose is a definition of a 'problem gambler' but i would not see myself as such.
    The govt and the media should be trying to counter those addictions that are not widely recognised of which i would argue football is one.When one sees the amount of time even money many people spend on football it is an addiction.I happen to support Man City and have been fortunate that over the last 10 years they have played both beautiful soccer and been successful enough to justify the time and money i spent following them in previous decades (i started in the 70's). But how many football fans over 50 can look back and say that all the time and money was worth it?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:
    I thought he could be out in the open again?
    I'm probably miles behind but someone texted me about it yesterday and I thought it couldn't have happened to a nicer person!

    (Well maybe Rees Mogg)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Jesus are we so far down the post-truth hole that we’re angry that a committee said No Deal was a bad idea

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?
    I suspect that you are actually correct. However, the Committee rather than showing Johnson's hand of all the cards, are nervous that he might accidentally fall into no deal Brexit over a handful of mackerel.
    That is ultimately the PM's decision.

    As it always was.

    This is like an incredibly protracted corporate deal, which it is essential for the company to conclude, getting down to a handful of the toughest issues - and then a couple of the non-execs issue a public report criticising your negotiations to date and telling you - and the Board - "Just sign the bloody deal on offer. You will never get anything better."

    With whom do you think the shareholders are going to be pissed off?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited December 2020
    Roger said:

    Great article.. As you say, we're still taking some risk, however minuscule. A coup as you say even though we think that Trump clearly doesn't have the support of the judges and generals to pull that off.

    Or some kind of rules cuck where Betfair decide to interpret the rules differently again e.g. what if Pence or Kamala became president and they decided to settle for them (not entirely impossible to see them doing that since they already broke their rules).

    Trump bettors would have certainly gloated a lot.

    The area where it becomes morally wrong is with regard to genuine problem gamblers who are losing a lot of money that they can't afford, and consistently - lives ruined, turning to crime. Your article puts the buck on the bookmakers and exchanges for that which I guess, fair enough.

    Where I feel somewhat uncomfortable, even as I fully take advantage, is that I know for a fact that they don't *truly* care. E.g. even though I'm in good net profit at both smarkets and Betfair exchange, I've suddenly had 'regulation' questions about my gambling. Yet when I had a bigger exposure before the election, or when I lost thousands, I never got those questions. They also approve big deposits or exposures *before* asking such questions which seems like the wrong way around to do things. It makes me wonder if they're using those 'regulations' to try to get rid of successful gamblers while.. conveniently overlooking or not tackling the real problem gamblers. The whole thing has felt dubious to me.

    I read a stat that apparently the bookies have made 60% of their profits from a small amount of 'problem gamblers'. So if they genuinely cared to tackle the problem gamblers... that would clearly mean a big hit to their profits. (Yet they still would probably turn a good profit - the profits that the bookies make are just staggering... I recall that bet365 was in the news for that this year.)

    All in all, the government has clearly wanted the bookies to self-regulate but they don't or can't which appears to be the reason for this next round of gambling crackdowns.

    Gambling in the UK is out of control and the bookies/exchanges find all sorts of ways to push out successful bettors so I can't say that I have a lot of sympathy. Get rid of VIP schemes, advertising, limit losses on casino games (no skill there), promo sign ups, bonuses, I would be happy about a lot of these things. There is a reason why in Monaco local citizens as well as the actual royal family are prohibited from gambling despite Monaco's famous casino industry.

    The Monaco story is interesting. It always seems to me a little too paternal particularly because it doesn't apply to non Monegasque residents.
    Singapore is similar, citizens and permanent residents have to pay $100 to enter the casino, but visitors and guest workers get in free.

    There’s at least two, possibly three hotels in Dubai that were built with rooms designed as casinos, with all the cabling in the floor and ceiling, waiting for the day that the government allows them to open. It’s not happened yet!
This discussion has been closed.