Snap General Election?
Discussion
wiggy001 said:
Lots of people are capable of holding back some money to pay for bills when they arrive. I don't think we should keep an inefficient system just because some people cannot budget properly.
Totally agree. If people are that inept/cannot be trusted then frankly I'd revert to my preferred solution and not pay cash benefits at all. Provide the product and have done with it.
Murph7355 said:
wiggy001 said:
Lots of people are capable of holding back some money to pay for bills when they arrive. I don't think we should keep an inefficient system just because some people cannot budget properly.
Totally agree. If people are that inept/cannot be trusted then frankly I'd revert to my preferred solution and not pay cash benefits at all. Provide the product and have done with it.
Get the energy companies to apply an "at source" discount to the energy price they charge for people eligible for winter fuel payments - then they can claim it back as a single tax rebate at the end of the financial year.
Moonhawk said:
There is another option.
Get the energy companies to apply an "at source" discount to the energy price they charge for people eligible for winter fuel payments - then they can claim it back as a single tax rebate at the end of the financial year.
Effectively what I mean by paying for the product Get the energy companies to apply an "at source" discount to the energy price they charge for people eligible for winter fuel payments - then they can claim it back as a single tax rebate at the end of the financial year.
There are benefits to lumping all payments in as one though... Simple admin and easier to control costs as there's only one amount to argue over.
Personally I'd scrap the payments across the board now the triple lock has seen pension values rise.
PurpleMoonlight said:
sidicks said:
Number of bets is irrelevant. Amount of bets is relevant - how much has been bet on each of the two parties in the last week or two?
Why?wiggy001 said:
Lots of people are capable of holding back some money to pay for bills when they arrive. I don't think we should keep an inefficient system just because some people cannot budget properly.
it's probably one of the most efficient payment systems the government utilises, it's just given to everyone along side their state pension. If it's built into the tax code there will be pensioners that will still require a payment because their pension is not sufficient to pay tax.
El stovey said:
Theresa May, being prime ministerial, making statements pledging resources to the security services, condemning terrorists.
Jeremy Corbyn, getting press for making elusive statements about terrorism yesterday.
Election over.
Well I wouldn't go that far.Jeremy Corbyn, getting press for making elusive statements about terrorism yesterday.
Election over.
It does remind the electorate though that being in government is more than about who can promise the most goodies from the magic money tree.
It is about security, control of our borders and the defense of the country.
The papers have so far concentrated on Corbyns (and Abbot and Mcdonnel) past support for the IRA. Corbyn has called Islamic terrorist organizations "friends" more recently than that.
All this talk of bets on Labour outstripping bets on the Tories is surely irrelevant.
With Mrs May at odds of 1/33, how many people are really going to take that bet regardless of how likely they think the outcome of the election?
- Many people of low means may not even have £300 to bet even if they wanted to and lesser bets would win practically nothing
- Most people of middling means probably wouldn't see the value in risking £300 for example (however small the risk) to win just a tenner
- Anyone of great means might be willing to risk a much larger sum (tens of thousands?) to achieve a reasonable return
So, what percentage of the population have the means to place a worthwhile bet on the tories? 5%? 10%?
Contrast that with the Labour position, got a quid in your pocket? It's sod all risk to stick a bet on Corbyn and maybe turn it into enough cash for a takeaway and a few beers.
If the odds were not so heavily skewed in one direction there might be some relevance to the number of bets placed but in this scenario...I think not.
With Mrs May at odds of 1/33, how many people are really going to take that bet regardless of how likely they think the outcome of the election?
- Many people of low means may not even have £300 to bet even if they wanted to and lesser bets would win practically nothing
- Most people of middling means probably wouldn't see the value in risking £300 for example (however small the risk) to win just a tenner
- Anyone of great means might be willing to risk a much larger sum (tens of thousands?) to achieve a reasonable return
So, what percentage of the population have the means to place a worthwhile bet on the tories? 5%? 10%?
Contrast that with the Labour position, got a quid in your pocket? It's sod all risk to stick a bet on Corbyn and maybe turn it into enough cash for a takeaway and a few beers.
If the odds were not so heavily skewed in one direction there might be some relevance to the number of bets placed but in this scenario...I think not.
sidicks said:
Number of bets is irrelevant. Amount of bets is relevant - how much has been bet on each of the two parties in the last week or two?
Why do you keep ignoring the issues?!
Hi sidicks, did you not see my comment on this yesterday or did you disagree with it? I think the number of bets IS (somewhat) relevant in a voting market where each punter has one vote in the contest. It is a measure (of sorts) of what the volume of punters think.Why do you keep ignoring the issues?!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-betting-the-o...
"[Although] 66% of all the money gambled with William Hill on the outcome has been for Remain with bets of up to £100,000 staked, but 69% of all individual bets placed have been for Leave. "
Who won?
It is very rare for outsiders to have a larger number (and volume obviously) of bets than the favourite.
I'm not clear where Yipper is getting his numbers from as IMHO in this case Labour are true 40/1 shots to win most seats.
Northbloke said:
Hi sidicks, did you not see my comment on this yesterday or did you disagree with it? I think the number of bets IS (somewhat) relevant in a voting market where each punter has one vote in the contest. It is a measure (of sorts) of what the volume of punters think.
It might be somewhat relevant if there are a large volume of bets and those betting are a true reflection of the wider population that will actually vote. I don't believe that to be the case for the same reasons that others have outlined previously.Northbloke said:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-betting-the-o...
"[Although] 66% of all the money gambled with William Hill on the outcome has been for Remain with bets of up to £100,000 staked, but 69% of all individual bets placed have been for Leave. "
Who won?
The polls had the two outcomes much more evenly matched and the eventual outcomes was (apparently) within the error margins for those surveys. That's not the case with the General Election."[Although] 66% of all the money gambled with William Hill on the outcome has been for Remain with bets of up to £100,000 staked, but 69% of all individual bets placed have been for Leave. "
Who won?
Northbloke said:
It is very rare for outsiders to have a larger number (and volume obviously) of bets than the favourite.
It's also rare for big outsiders to win...Nothbloke said:
I'm not clear where Yipper is getting his numbers from as IMHO in this case Labour are true 40/1 shots to win most seats.
Probably making it up!Which do you think is more likely to make a bookie move their prices - 10 people betting £10 on Corbyn to win or one person betting £10,000 on May to win?
PurpleAki said:
I was thinking this morning that it was only time until these idiots started this sort of thing.Sick, sad and deluded.
garyhun said:
PurpleAki said:
I was thinking this morning that it was only time until these idiots started this sort of thing.Sick, sad and deluded.
What it says about those responsible goes far beyond what we've been used to so far from the 'tolerant left' in all its inclusive glory.
Their 'heroes' under Corbyn deserve everything they're about to get.
PurpleMoonlight said:
it's probably one of the most efficient payment systems the government utilises, it's just given to everyone along side their state pension.
If it's built into the tax code there will be pensioners that will still require a payment because their pension is not sufficient to pay tax.
Easy fix.If it's built into the tax code there will be pensioners that will still require a payment because their pension is not sufficient to pay tax.
Give it to all pensioners.
Have a tick box in the tax return for "get winter fuel payment".
Claw it back through the tax calculation. All pensioners rich enough to be not getting the allowance will be doing a tax return.
sidicks said:
Which do you think is more likely to make a bookie move their prices - 10 people betting £10 on Corbyn to win or one person betting £10,000 on May to win?
That's a different issue, that's why the prices are what they are. (I bet for a living plus I've also worked as a bookie literally taking bets and setting the prices in response to £ volume of bets.)What I look for is something that indicates the prices (set by weight of money) may be wrong. In the case of Brexit that volume (number) of bets I believe was just such an indicator. I don't generally bet on politics though so profess no expertise, just thinking aloud.
And as for polling companies, I don't understand why they are still in existence and people take any notice of them. Shocking track record.
Anyway, I've laboured (!) the point enough and I do generally agree with others it is insignificant here as Labour don't have a hope in hell of getting most seats. I will be astonished if May doesn't increase her current majority at the very least.
Northbloke said:
That's a different issue, that's why the prices are what they are. (I bet for a living plus I've also worked as a bookie literally taking bets and setting the prices in response to £ volume of bets.)
What I look for is something that indicates the prices (set by weight of money) may be wrong. In the case of Brexit that volume (number) of bets I believe was just such an indicator. I don't generally bet on politics though so profess no expertise, just thinking aloud.
And as for polling companies, I don't understand why they are still in existence and people take any notice of them. Shocking track record.
Anyway, I've laboured (!) the point enough and I do generally agree with others it is insignificant here as Labour don't have a hope in hell of getting most seats. I will be astonished if May doesn't increase her current majority at the very least.
Isn't the bit in bold key...?!What I look for is something that indicates the prices (set by weight of money) may be wrong. In the case of Brexit that volume (number) of bets I believe was just such an indicator. I don't generally bet on politics though so profess no expertise, just thinking aloud.
And as for polling companies, I don't understand why they are still in existence and people take any notice of them. Shocking track record.
Anyway, I've laboured (!) the point enough and I do generally agree with others it is insignificant here as Labour don't have a hope in hell of getting most seats. I will be astonished if May doesn't increase her current majority at the very least.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff