EU demand extra £1.7bn from UK - Page 14

**Chris** · 10-11-2014, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

I guess it depends on your political perspective as to what "authoritarian" means.

You guess wrongly. "Libertarian" and "Authoritarian" are two well-understood terms from the realm of political science, used to describe one's predilection for using the power of the State to force patterns of behaviour on its citizens, or not.

Quote:

For example, I think that, in relation to the neocon free marketeers, it means being told you can no longer ruthlessly exploit people for your own profit.

Yes, that's a very good example of how you don't understand what you're talking about.

ianch99 · 10-11-2014, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhyds

Authoritarian means having the state take control in areas where quite simply it has no business poking its nose in. Another example is the Green party's manifesto pledge to scrap the national lottery for not being redistributive enough...

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9884817.print/

The National Lottery does indeed need revisiting: private company making 76 million profit running the scheme, only 28% of income to good causes, etc. Richard Branson originally wanted to run the National Lottery as non-profit making, but the contract was given to Camelot instead ..

Here is an interested article on the morality of the National Lottery: https://philosophynow.org/issues/14/Lottery_or_Lootery

rhyds · 10-11-2014, 17:08

So a company makes a profit running a service? Was the (government owned) tote ever run as a not for profit?

If you don't agree with the lottery's makeup, then don't play it (I don't).

**Hugh** · 10-11-2014, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

The National Lottery does indeed need revisiting: private company making 76 million profit running the scheme, only 28% of income to good causes, etc. Richard Branson originally wanted to run the National Lottery as non-profit making, but the contract was given to Camelot instead ..

Here is an interested article on the morality of the National Lottery: https://philosophynow.org/issues/14/Lottery_or_Lootery

Nice mixture of statistics there - shouldn't you really use the same kind of stats to give a more balanced picture?

https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/l...the-money-goes

So the £76 million profit is less than 1% of income, and the 28% of income to good causes is £1,175 million - the rest of the income is split between £3,524 million to Lottery players, £807 million in Lottery Duty, and £309 million to retailers in commission.

ianch99 · 10-11-2014, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

So the £76 million profit is less than 1% of income

Your point is? Zero is a lot less than 76 million.

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhyds

So a company makes a profit running a service? Was the (government owned) tote ever run as a not for profit?

If you don't agree with the lottery's makeup, then don't play it (I don't).

I don't play it for a number of reasons but that's not the point. The point was the Lottery could have been run as a non-profit operation ..

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

You guess wrongly. "Libertarian" and "Authoritarian" are two well-understood terms from the realm of political science, used to describe one's predilection for using the power of the State to force patterns of behaviour on its citizens, or not.

Yes, that's a very good example of how you don't understand what you're talking about.

Wow, do you always insult people when they have an opinion contrary to your own?

**Hugh** · 10-11-2014, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

Your point is? Zero is a lot less than 76 million.

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

I don't play it for a number of reasons but that's not the point. The point was the Lottery could have been run as a non-profit operation ..

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Wow, do you always insult people when they have an opinion contrary to your own?

My point was that you were (seemingly) mixing percentages and whole numbers in a way that made the profit made by Camelot disproportionate - if you had used percentages or whole numbers, your post might not have been so loaded....

Or to put it another way -
Camelot made a profit of £76 million on an income of over £750 million, with £1,175 million going to good causes, and £3,524 million going to Lottery winners - not quite as emotive, is it?

ianch99 · 10-11-2014, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

My point was that you were (seemingly) mixing percentages and whole numbers in a way that made the profit made by Camelot disproportionate - if you had used percentages or whole numbers, your post might not have been so loaded....

Or to put it another way -
Camelot made a profit of £76 million on an income of over £750 million, with £1,175 million going to good causes, and £3,524 million going to Lottery winners - not quite as emotive, is it?

You are (seemingly) missing the point that Richard Branson offered to run the scheme as a non-profit.

rhyds · 10-11-2014, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are (seemingly) missing the point that Richard Branston offered to run the scheme as a non-profit.

Branson (Branston is a brand of pickle) took part in a previous franchise round and lost the vote 4-1. There's nothing stopping him from trying again in 2019.

**Hugh** · 10-11-2014, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are (seemingly) missing the point that Richard Branson offered to run the scheme as a non-profit.

No, I wasn't (I actually believe that non-profit should be the way to go) - I just thought that your emotive slant on the stats was not the best argument.

ymmv

ianch99 · 10-11-2014, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhyds

Branson (Branston is a brand of pickle) took part in a previous franchise round and lost the vote 4-1. There's nothing stopping him from trying again in 2019.

You are right, he was in a right pickle when he lost the vote in 2000. He said at the time: "It goes without saying we are all extremely disappointed and sad by the decision. Having said that we congratulate Camelot in a good fight and for being able to turn around the decision where four out of five judges had voted for the People's Lottery only two-and-a-half months ago. One new judge turns up and somehow manages to switch a number of them around"

I suspect that after waiting nearly 20 years, he may have lost his enthusiasm.

---------- Post added at 21:55 ---------- Previous post was at 21:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, I wasn't (I actually believe that non-profit should be the way to go) - I just thought that your emotive slant on the stats was not the best argument.

ymmv

I was honestly not trying to slant anything emotively or otherwise. I included the profit number because I believe they should not be making *any* and I listed the percentage because I think it should be a higher proportion i.e. no Government Taxes.

**Hugh** · 11-11-2014, 06:03

In that case, please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your post.

Ignitionnet · 11-11-2014, 07:33

Wonder how much better off the EU as a whole would be had the now-President of the European Commission with his penchant for shady backroom deals not been running a European tax haven?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ker-commission
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...t-9852596.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...signation.html
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...er-needs-to-go

Osem · 11-11-2014, 08:48

Why does the EU remind me of Tower Hamlets?

Ignitionnet · 18-11-2014, 12:17

So about that budget reduction 'victory'...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-say-MEPs.html

They really are delusional.

EDIT: Actually no the MEPs aren't delusional. Why wouldn't net-recipient countries want an increase in the budget? It's in their interests for it to be as high as possible.

Osem · 18-11-2014, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

So about that budget reduction 'victory'...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-say-MEPs.html

They really are delusional.

EDIT: Actually no the MEPs aren't delusional. Why wouldn't net-recipient countries want an increase in the budget? It's in their interests for it to be as high as possible.

No it's not really a big surprise is it. About as much of a surprise as their poor heading over this way because our benefits system is relatively generous and/or less onerous than their own. Mind you, that never happens does it, they're all far too busy being net contributors...