I've filled in the London results spreadsheet with the number of candidates standing for each ward (which is potentially confusing until the results are filled in):
45 parties/groupings are contesting the London local elections, plus independents and candidates with no description:
Lab 1,851, Con 1,812, LD 1,320, Green 844, UKIP 465, TUSC 196, Ind 90, CPA 61, BNP 52, Ind Lab Group (Harrow) 47, Tower Hamlets First 44, People Before Profit 22, No Descr 16, All People's Party 16, Hornchurch Res Ass 12, Community (Hounslow) 7, Keep Our St Helier Hosp 6, Havering Res Ass 6, South Hornchurch Ind Local Res Grp 6, Upminster & Cranham Res Ass 6, Harold Wood Hill Park Res Ass 5, Communist 5, Socialist Party GB 4, SLP 3, Ind Loxford 3, Rainham & Wennington Ind Res Grp 3, Northwood Hills Comm Champions 3, Mitcham Ind 3, Pettits Res Ass 3, Merton Park Ward Ind Res 3, Liberal 3, Nat Lib Party 3, Europeans Party 2, Patients Not Profits 2, Eng Dem 1, Left Unity 1, Red Flag 1, Peace Party 1, Save King George Hosp 1, UK Ind Now 1, British Dem Party 1, Ind Voice for Willesden Res 1, Dem Reform Party 1, Communities United 1, NF 1, Pirate 1, Putting Croydon First 1
If the Tories cannot hold on to seats like Thurrock then they haven't got a hope in hell at the UK GE next year. 4/1 is either an outstandlingly good price, or else the Tories under Cameron are heading for meltdown.
If the bookies have their relative pricing of seats right, the Conservatives could have an overall majority and lose Thurrock.
Indeed. However, that argument would look more convincing if it were not for the fact that Thurrock is far from unusual. A whole raft of CON-held marginals currently have very long CON prices.
Either the bookies are idiots, or else the Tories under Cameron are shafted. It is a very brave man who thinks that he knows more about political odds than Shadsy.
Apart from "getting out of Europe" and "cutting back hard on immigration" what policies does UKIP have on, for example, the NHS? Or Defence? I understand that they' want to expand exploitation of our national energy resources, for example to develop fracking. Zat so?
Yes. Also, I understand that they oppose having NHS services free at the point of use. Not sure of their views of defence.
Apart from "getting out of Europe" and "cutting back hard on immigration" what policies does UKIP have on, for example, the NHS? Or Defence? I understand that they' want to expand exploitation of our national energy resources, for example to develop fracking. Zat so?
Yes. Also, I understand that they oppose having NHS services free at the point of use. Not sure of their views of defence.
"Also, I understand that they oppose having NHS services free at the point of use" - Nick Palmer
"The NHS is valued by the people of this country, admired and envied by others. The principle of treatment free at the point of delivery is non-negotiable" - UKIP
Crossover update Avery 25 December - failed Stark Dawning 1 May - failed Fitalass 5 May - failed Rod Crosby 31 May - pending*
*I'm being very generous here - most took Rod's prediction of "by May" to mean 1 May...
Teetering on the brink, though.
Rod has a good chance of being right* - but a miss is a mile.
*now I have very generously allowed 31 May after he squirmed. Otherwise he is already wrong
How's Compouter's prediction of no crossover before May 2015 looking?
The terms of crossover on this site appear to be a Tory lead in just one poll, even if Labour then, erm, cross back over again (crossback?). I'd say it was a racing certainty, on such terms, that we have both crossover and crossback, but I could be wrong.
Sorry was at a retirement party last night for the outgoing CEO of one of our joint ventures so couldn't respond to your comment a couple of threads ago.
You criticised my view that shareholders should decide how much a CEO is paid.
Of course there is significant work to do with improving institutional stewardship of their investments.
But if not the shareholders then who do you think should determine CEO pay? Ed Miliband? The Sun? Graef Crystal? @another_richard?
I'm quite happy for shareholders to decide on directors pay but as you well know most of the 'shareholders' are via a block vote from financial institutions.
Which is decided by people with a vested interest in ever increasing executive earnings.
Here's a radical idea - no more block votes, only individual shareholders get to vote. No more cozy cartels and mutual back scratching for the executive oligarchy but the people who have invested their own money deciding how the businesses they own will be run.
Remind me, how many times does the directors remuneration get voted down ? Or for that matter how many times does anything get voted down - the reappointment of the directors, the reappointment of the auditors etc ?
Why should an individual who decides to outsource management of their pension be disenfranchised?
Voting down is relative rare, but over the past few years you've seen very significant votes against management remuneration on multiple occasions. These often result in changes either before or after the vote. Recent examples worth highlighting are Glencore, Sports Direct and Barclays.
I'm sorry Charles but that's remeniscent of a union baron of the 1970s.
Has anyone here ever been asked how their pension fund shares should be voted ?
Voting down is not 'relatively rare' its practically non-existant.
Don't 'very significant votes against management remuneration' tend to amount to about 10% ?
And 'changes before or after a vote' is just a cozy stich up by vested interests.
Surely the problem you are describing is the one that beset the Co-oP and gives problems for other mutuals.
Have you ever received ballot forms from an insurance company, a pension provider or even a company of which you are a shareholder and have not returned them?
Why should an individual who decides to outsource management of their pension be disenfranchised?
Do you know of any person who has ever been asked by their pension provider how they should vote on a specific issue at a specific AGM? Is that what you call "enfranchised"?
There are some firms that are good at this - Jupiter is an example - but every investor has the right to instruct their managers how to vote. Of course there are some investments - investment trusts, for example - where you don't own the underlying shares so can't vote in those elections although, of course, you can vote in the trust ballot.
I was expecting more of a "yes" or "no"answer tbh. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume the answer is "no".
You are wrong, the answer is yes.
Sadly, however, most of the companies require the investor has to proactive contact their manager to provide instructions, so inertia leads to nothing happening.
Sorry was at a retirement party last night for the outgoing CEO of one of our joint ventures so couldn't respond to your comment a couple of threads ago.
You criticised my view that shareholders should decide how much a CEO is paid.
Of course there is significant work to do with improving institutional stewardship of their investments.
But if not the shareholders then who do you think should determine CEO pay? Ed Miliband? The Sun? Graef Crystal? @another_richard?
I'm quite happy for shareholders to decide on directors pay but as you well know most of the 'shareholders' are via a block vote from financial institutions.
Which is decided by people with a vested interest in ever increasing executive earnings.
Here's a radical idea - no more block votes, only individual shareholders get to vote. No more cozy cartels and mutual back scratching for the executive oligarchy but the people who have invested their own money deciding how the businesses they own will be run.
Remind me, how many times does the directors remuneration get voted down ? Or for that matter how many times does anything get voted down - the reappointment of the directors, the reappointment of the auditors etc ?
Why should an individual who decides to outsource management of their pension be disenfranchised?
Voting down is relative rare, but over the past few years you've seen very significant votes against management remuneration on multiple occasions. These often result in changes either before or after the vote. Recent examples worth highlighting are Glencore, Sports Direct and Barclays.
I'm sorry Charles but that's remeniscent of a union baron of the 1970s.
Has anyone here ever been asked how their pension fund shares should be voted ?
Voting down is not 'relatively rare' its practically non-existant.
Don't 'very significant votes against management remuneration' tend to amount to about 10% ?
And 'changes before or after a vote' is just a cozy stich up by vested interests.
Closer to 30 - 40% in many cases
But why not answer my question: why does someone who has a fund manager make their investments (including, for instance, me) not be permitted to vote?
" I understand that they [UKIP] oppose having NHS services free at the point of use"
Not heard that one before and I'd be amazed if any party campaigned on that platform. However, if we are ever to have a sensible debate about how good health care can be provided for all in the future then it is an idea that will have to be looked at.
Take the GP service for example. Most people could afford to chip in a tenner to see their GP. If everyone who could afford it did then the sums raised would be very significant, probably more than cover the cost of the service. A spin off might also be that the service would actually improve (if my vet treated his patients the way some GPs do their's he would be out of business very quickly).
Why should an individual who decides to outsource management of their pension be disenfranchised?
Do you know of any person who has ever been asked by their pension provider how they should vote on a specific issue at a specific AGM? Is that what you call "enfranchised"?
There are some firms that are good at this - Jupiter is an example - but every investor has the right to instruct their managers how to vote. Of course there are some investments - investment trusts, for example - where you don't own the underlying shares so can't vote in those elections although, of course, you can vote in the trust ballot.
I was expecting more of a "yes" or "no"answer tbh. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume the answer is "no".
You are wrong, the answer is yes.
Sadly, however, most of the companies require the investor has to proactive contact their manager to provide instructions, so inertia leads to nothing happening.
Who was the pension provider and on which vote did they seek a view on?
It looks like about 62% of London voters will have the opportunity to vote for at least one UKIP candidate in the local elections. I make it they're standing at least one candidate in 387 wards out of 629.
Crossover update Avery 25 December - failed Stark Dawning 1 May - failed Fitalass 5 May - failed Rod Crosby 31 May - pending*
*I'm being very generous here - most took Rod's prediction of "by May" to mean 1 May...
Pointing out where Joachimite prophecies have been not been borne out by events is to shoot fish in a barrel. Look at the trouble that Marx got into...
Why should an individual who decides to outsource management of their pension be disenfranchised?
Do you know of any person who has ever been asked by their pension provider how they should vote on a specific issue at a specific AGM? Is that what you call "enfranchised"?
There are some firms that are good at this - Jupiter is an example - but every investor has the right to instruct their managers how to vote. Of course there are some investments - investment trusts, for example - where you don't own the underlying shares so can't vote in those elections although, of course, you can vote in the trust ballot.
I was expecting more of a "yes" or "no"answer tbh. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume the answer is "no".
You are wrong, the answer is yes.
Sadly, however, most of the companies require the investor has to proactive contact their manager to provide instructions, so inertia leads to nothing happening.
Who was the pension provider and on which vote did they seek a view on?
Jupiter, and they have a standard form for voting instructions. You can either given them a standing instruction for all companies or you can submit a specific instruction for a specific situation.
But don't forget that the costs of everyone doing this would be high and that all eats into the investment performance
Apart from "getting out of Europe" and "cutting back hard on immigration" what policies does UKIP have on, for example, the NHS? Or Defence? I understand that they' want to expand exploitation of our national energy resources, for example to develop fracking. Zat so?
Yes. Also, I understand that they oppose having NHS services free at the point of use. Not sure of their views of defence.
If you go to: http://www.ukip.org/issues, you will find a summary of policies outside of leaving the EU. There are many questions to be asked and the economic side is almost non-existent.
Asking all tourists to have private health insurance is an interesting one.
Before dealing with the genuinely difficult issue of how institutional shareholders vote at AGMs, the government should address a much easier problem, namely the disgrace of the disenfranchisement of ordinary shareholders who hold their shares via nominee accounts (which is basically everyone nowadays, since it's near-impossible in practice for most ordinary shareholders not to use nominee accounts, and legally impossible for shares held in ISAs).
This is a pure IT issue, and really should be addressed ASAP. In fact the last Labour government did propose to do so, and got as far as a public consultation, but for some reason they bottled out. It is regrettable that the coalition haven't picked this up again - it really isn't hard, although obviously there would have to be a period of a couple of years before going live to allow IT systems to be updated.
Take the GP service for example. Most people could afford to chip in a tenner to see their GP. If everyone who could afford it did then the sums raised would be very significant, probably more than cover the cost of the service. A spin off might also be that the service would actually improve (if my vet treated his patients the way some GPs do their's he would be out of business very quickly).
If most people can afford to pay £10 to see their GP then most people can afford to pay £10 more in taxes to fund it, and GP practices don't need to worry about collecting money from patients, all the bureaucracy of dealing with patients who are exempt from paying (the unemployed, pensioners, etc).
Furthermore, most evidence on healthcare is that early detection and prevention saves loads of money - so why would you want to introduce a charge for seeing the GP and dissuade people from seeking medical advice early on? You'd just increase costs for the NHS down the road.
Before dealing with the genuinely difficult issue of how institutional shareholders vote at AGMs, the government should address a much easier problem, namely the disgrace of the disenfranchisement of ordinary shareholders who hold their shares via nominee accounts (which is basically everyone nowadays, since it's near-impossible in practice for most ordinary shareholders not to use nominee accounts, and legally impossible for shares held in ISAs).
This is a pure IT issue, and really should be addressed ASAP. In fact the last Labour government did propose to do so, and got as far as a public consultation, but for some reason they bottled out. It is regrettable that the coalition haven't picked this up again - it really isn't hard, although obviously there would have to be a period of a couple of years before going live to allow IT systems to be updated.
Memo to George and Vince: Just do it.
Another benefit would be that holders of shares in nominee accounts (isas) could then subscribe to scrip dividend schemes where available.
@AndyJS I agree, Chesterfield isn't all that interesting. If they wanted a LD/Lab marginal somewhere Cambridge would have been a better pick.
am in Camb - getting daily leaflets for last week from LD and Lab. LDs sent a colour coded blue one saying "switch to LD to keep Labour out" - if only they had given me a reason I might have considered it.
Mr. Me, Is late diagnosis a problem in other countries that do level a charge for seeing a GP? I don't think so, indeed Tim, of blessed memory, used to point out regularly on this site that late diagnosis was a peculiarly British problem. So I am not sure introducing a payment for those that could afford it would actually put up a barrier. I might also ask you to reflect on what happened when charges for eyesight tests were introduced and opticians were, in the main, taken out of the NHS . There were great prognostications of doom, people wouldn't go etc etc., .all of which were proved false.
As for collecting the cash being such a problem and cost, just about every other country in the world manages it. I don't see why the UK should find it so difficult.
The argument that we should just keep increasing taxes to pay for the ever increasing health bill is not one that I think is sustainable in the long term.
Surely almost all 'Seats to watch' are LD held, the success or failure of the big 2 to win their LD targets will likely decide or at least correlate with the result of the next election?
The argument that we should just keep increasing taxes to pay for the ever increasing health bill is not one that I think is sustainable in the long term.
It might not be one you agree with, but why should it not be sustainable?
If we assume that the cost of the service is the same in both cases, then it is the same amount of money raised by either taxes or charges. The distinction between the two is then purely a political one of whether you wish to charge on an "equal" basis in terms of those who use the service most pay most, or on an "equal" basis in terms of those who can afford to make a greater contribution do so for the common good.
This is a political and philosophical argument, rather than one of inevitability.
On the 1% Labour lead...has Ed's grand announcement on rents not filtered through to the public yet? Or do they merely lack the capacity to comprehend the grand vision from this intellectual titan (with a 2:1 degree)? As for the UKIP returning vote...40% is still quite a large figure. Where they go will be key.
Not a lot in there for PB readers tbh. Indeed, without sucking up unduly, the comparison between that piece and the recent posts by antifrank on his own site is positively embarrassing.
I make no partisan point, just an FYI. That said, if I were a Kipper, I'd think Populus had it in for me...
Is Populus online ?
I think online might well be useless for determining UKIP VI tbh.
THe thing is whn people are called, UKIP get about 70 'raw' numbers or so - far less than every single online poll. So clearly thre has to b adjustment, how much is the question.
Not a lot in there for PB readers tbh. Indeed, without sucking up unduly, the comparison between that piece and the recent posts by antifrank on his own site is positively embarrassing.
This site, and Antifrank's make the MSM look like the bunch of rank amateurs they actually are.
The sheer arrogance of regarding my or anyone else's vote as their property sticks in my craw.
O/T Has anyone had any thoughts on Eurovision betting? Am thinking of laying Russia at 5/2 on Betfair as the voting is so political, not to mention being jolly entertaining to boot.
The sheer arrogance of regarding my or anyone else's vote as their property sticks in my craw.
O/T Has anyone had any thoughts on Eurovision betting? Am thinking of laying Russia at 5/2 on Betfair as the voting is so political, not to mention being jolly entertaining to boot.
I don't understand why the UK are so high up the list. I haven't looked into it hugely, but we haven't come in the top 10 for ages.
Not a lot in there for PB readers tbh. Indeed, without sucking up unduly, the comparison between that piece and the recent posts by antifrank on his own site is positively embarrassing.
This site, and Antifrank's make the MSM look like the bunch of rank amateurs they actually are.
Ok, so in 2009, 25% of the red-faced blazers thought they'd stick with Bottler in the GE. Only 18% apparently did (i.e. 18% of their 2009 Euros vote stayed blazer in 2010, hence 3.1%). So about 3/4 of those intending to stick with Bottler did so.
If 56% of the blazers are now saying they'll stick with Bottler for the GE, it suggests that actually, on 2010 performance, only about 42% will. So they'll get about, what, 12% in 2015.
I suspect, however, that in reality, rather more of their vote than this will leach away over the next year. In 2010 it was abundantly clear that Bottler and his party were just comedy candidates, with little prospect of making any sort of material impact given where Labour was polling. So it proved. In 2015, in contrast, the risks of voting blazer are quite acute. Labour is at 35%, can win a majority even if it comes second and thus every anti-Labour seat counts. Voting for the blazers risks the return of a Labour government, a heinous consequence that was very clearly not on the cards in 2010.
In view of this, I reckon nothing like 56% or even 42% will stick with Bottler for 2015. South of 18%, i.e. fewer than last time, would be my guess, producing a GE showing in the 5 to 8% range.
Dyedwoolie prediction update for GE, Euros and Sindy
Euros - UKIP to win with high 20s, Lab and Con within 3 of each other in the twenties
Sindy - Yes 47.5, No 52.5, not sensing any continuing movement to yes at the moment
GE - Lab largest party, 15 short, coalition with rump Lib Dems, back to the polls in a year, Dave gone, Kipper/Tory entente cordial (note the relative silence of the Tories on racistgate). Swing back pending.
The argument that we should just keep increasing taxes to pay for the ever increasing health bill is not one that I think is sustainable in the long term.
It might not be one you agree with, but why should it not be sustainable?
If we assume that the cost of the service is the same in both cases, then it is the same amount of money raised by either taxes or charges. The distinction between the two is then purely a political one of whether you wish to charge on an "equal" basis in terms of those who use the service most pay most, or on an "equal" basis in terms of those who can afford to make a greater contribution do so for the common good.
This is a political and philosophical argument, rather than one of inevitability.
Assuming the cost of service is the same is one thing.
You are also assuming that central government is more efficient at collection and distribution, that the introduction of new incentives (i.e. direct fees) won't change GPs behaviour and that increased taxes won't influence taxpayers' behaviour
The purpose of opinion polling is to try to find out what other people think, because one cannot reliably extrapolate from one's own opinions to those of other people. What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
The purpose of opinion polling is to try to find out what other people think, because one cannot reliably extrapolate from one's own opinions to those of other people. What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
To date UKIP have no track record of translating Euro votes into GE votes, or indeed council by election votes. A trend or pattern remains until it is broken.
Whilst Clegg is still leader of the LibDems,the 7-1 with Paddy Power for a Labour minority is a fair price.It's difficult to see a formal coalition with him in charge and yet the Lib/Lab coalition is half the price.Yet,Clegg is so toxic he's radio-active.I make both these options level-pegging at the moment. After the Euros the L/Ds will have to decide whether to ditch their leader.Whether they decide to do so could determine the eventual outcome in 2015. General comment-the old supposed quote attributed to Confucius about living in interesting times.Interesting times indeed and the original quote may have come from Jung.
To all those posters comparing UKIP Euro & GE vote shares - there needs to be a correction for turnout to convert this to % of Kippers sticking by the GE, unless it is assumed that the stay at home Euro voters who vote in the GE are just as likely to be Kippers as those who vote in the Euros - unlikely, imo.
The sheer arrogance of regarding my or anyone else's vote as their property sticks in my craw.
O/T Has anyone had any thoughts on Eurovision betting? Am thinking of laying Russia at 5/2 on Betfair as the voting is so political, not to mention being jolly entertaining to boot.
I don't understand why the UK are so high up the list. I haven't looked into it hugely, but we haven't come in the top 10 for ages.
5th in 2009 was our last decent placing. This years entry by Molly seems a decentish sort of track. Popbitch is very keen on it and have been flagging up how well the city of Leicester has done this year. Winners of: football championship, great British bake off, British sewing bee, x factor, world snooker championship, premiership rugby. Molly is also from Leicester.
Why should an individual who decides to outsource management of their pension be disenfranchised?
Do you know of any person who has ever been asked by their pension provider how they should vote on a specific issue at a specific AGM? Is that what you call "enfranchised"?
There are some firms that are good at this - Jupiter is an example - but every investor has the right to instruct their managers how to vote. Of course there are some investments - investment trusts, for example - where you don't own the underlying shares so can't vote in those elections although, of course, you can vote in the trust ballot.
I was expecting more of a "yes" or "no"answer tbh. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume the answer is "no".
You are wrong, the answer is yes.
Sadly, however, most of the companies require the investor has to proactive contact their manager to provide instructions, so inertia leads to nothing happening.
Who was the pension provider and on which vote did they seek a view on?
Jupiter, and they have a standard form for voting instructions. You can either given them a standing instruction for all companies or you can submit a specific instruction for a specific situation.
But don't forget that the costs of everyone doing this would be high and that all eats into the investment performance
Does excessive boardroom pay never eat into the investment performance?
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
I've done that quite a few times with various things.
A genealogy website renewed itself once, costing me about £200.
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
You can ask them, but they will probably point you to the t&c which will state automatic renewal unless u cancel. They might be reasonable, but then again.....
To all those posters comparing UKIP Euro & GE vote shares - there needs to be a correction for turnout to convert this to % of Kippers sticking by the GE, unless it is assumed that the stay at home Euro voters who vote in the GE are just as likely to be Kippers as those who vote in the Euros - unlikely, imo.
Good point. Given the turnout at the GE was effectively double the turnout at the Euros that 3.1% was worth more like 6% at the Euros given this has been the issue that has traditionally motivated UKIP supporters to vote disproportionately
I say "traditionally" because UKIP's remarkable success in becoming the NOTA party (a counterparty to Ed's failure in collecting opposition to the government of course) has sucked in a lot of supporters who probably care a lot less about the EU.
It may well be that assumptions that the UKIP supporter genuinely cares about the Euros (unlike everyone else) and is therefore much more likely to turn out are misplaced. It shows how important it is for Nigel to keep his bandwaggon rolling and to enthuse people with jumping on.
Surely almost all 'Seats to watch' are LD held, the success or failure of the big 2 to win their LD targets will likely decide or at least correlate with the result of the next election?
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
If the payment was via Apple then no chance.
They'll point out they sent you an email a month before telling you about your subscriptions that are about to auto-renew.
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
If the payment was via Apple then no chance.
They'll point out they sent you an email a month before telling you about your subscriptions that are about to auto-renew.
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
I've done that quite a few times with various things.
A genealogy website renewed itself once, costing me about £200.
I got 3 letters from Esure reminding me to renew the insurance for my old car. I was on the phone to them renewing it when I noticed it said petrol for the fuel when the new one is a diesel.
It seems I somehow renewed it last year although I have absolutely no recollection of doing so and it has been suggested that the direct debit might have been used. It is possible I simply did what I almost did this year. Checking SOs on your account occasionally is a good investment.
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
If the payment was via Apple then no chance.
They'll point out they sent you an email a month before telling you about your subscriptions that are about to auto-renew.
Apart from "getting out of Europe" and "cutting back hard on immigration" what policies does UKIP have on, for example, the NHS? Or Defence? I understand that they' want to expand exploitation of our national energy resources, for example to develop fracking. Zat so?
Yes. Also, I understand that they oppose having NHS services free at the point of use. Not sure of their views of defence.
This is the best I could do in a couple of minutes Nick. They do seem to mention defence, a bit.
The purpose of opinion polling is to try to find out what other people think, because one cannot reliably extrapolate from one's own opinions to those of other people. What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
To date UKIP have no track record of translating Euro votes into GE votes, or indeed council by election votes. A trend or pattern remains until it is broken.
They have the precedent of converting 18.8% of their 2009 share of the vote into the 2010GE vote.
BJB believes this will fall to below 10%, whereas the polling evidence is that it will rise substantially.
'The comments will be seen as a sign of increased tensions within the anti-independence campaign and in particular between Labour and the Conservatives.
The Labour source insisted the presence of Mr Cameron north of the Border was a big negative to the No campaign, which, he claimed, would win in spite of him.
He added: "Cameron is toxic. Everyone knows that."'
The purpose of opinion polling is to try to find out what other people think, because one cannot reliably extrapolate from one's own opinions to those of other people. What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
To date UKIP have no track record of translating Euro votes into GE votes, or indeed council by election votes. A trend or pattern remains until it is broken.
They have the precedent of converting 18.8% of their 2009 share of the vote into the 2010GE vote.
BJB believes this will fall to below 10%, whereas the polling evidence is that it will rise substantially.
It is not I who is defying the trend or pattern.
Yes there is no evidence that GE's turn into Presidential style affairs with the minor parties being squeezed - rolls eyes.
So this time next year we'll all be voting to give too clever for his own good, "Intellectual Ed" a good pasting?
Bring it on.
I guess we'll see how Cameron responds to the jibe that he lacks intellectual self-confidence today. Not sure what turning red will tell us about it either way, though.
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
It's strange how utterly blind labour are to the risk of a yes vote.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
Blind to the debt crisis Blind to Iraq aftermath Blind to the effects of unlimited immigration Blind to the rise of unhinged mentalists to leader and hence PM Blind to the effects of benefits for all Blind to the Co op Blind to anything other than Lab maj nailed on in 2015
Totally unsurprising that they are blind to Sindy.
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
It's strange how utterly blind labour are to the risk of a yes vote.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
They thought they'd be in power at Holyrood in perpetuity, either by themselves or in coalition with the LDs and Greens. Apparently some Scottish Labour people found it difficult to come to terms with the 2007 result when they lost power.
So this time next year we'll all be voting to give too clever for his own good, "Intellectual Ed" a good pasting?
Bring it on.
I guess we'll see how Cameron responds to the jibe that he lacks intellectual self-confidence today. Not sure what turning red will tell us about it either way, though.
All he has to do is point out that whilst Red may be intellectual all his idea's are mad and would take the country back 40 years - Fair do's they may be held together by some abstract Marxist intellect, but they're still barking...
The purpose of opinion polling is to try to find out what other people think, because one cannot reliably extrapolate from one's own opinions to those of other people. What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
To date UKIP have no track record of translating Euro votes into GE votes, or indeed council by election votes. A trend or pattern remains until it is broken.
They have the precedent of converting 18.8% of their 2009 share of the vote into the 2010GE vote.
BJB believes this will fall to below 10%, whereas the polling evidence is that it will rise substantially.
It is not I who is defying the trend or pattern.
Wow, less than one in five? That's impressive! They could be on for 5, maybe 6 percent next year! One more heave....
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
If the payment was via Apple then no chance.
They'll point out they sent you an email a month before telling you about your subscriptions that are about to auto-renew.
Last year in a moment of madness, I subscribed to the online version of The Spectator for £79.99.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
I've done that quite a few times with various things.
A genealogy website renewed itself once, costing me about £200.
I got 3 letters from Esure reminding me to renew the insurance for my old car. I was on the phone to them renewing it when I noticed it said petrol for the fuel when the new one is a diesel.
It seems I somehow renewed it last year although I have absolutely no recollection of doing so and it has been suggested that the direct debit might have been used. It is possible I simply did what I almost did this year. Checking SOs on your account occasionally is a good investment.
Insurers now automatically renew because (apparently? Not heard of it) they have some arrangement with the police/the authorities whereby they want to keep uninsured drivers off the roads. So they will insure you, unasked.
One or other of the companies did this to me a couple of years ago and I noticed it as I had insured for that year elsewhere and they refunded me the duplicate premium in full (as they effing well ought to have have done).
Lots of rumours on Twitter that IPSOS did a poll for BTOGETHER, a week or two ago, but BT didn't publish as it wasn't good for No.
It's certainly noticeable that there's been an oddly long gap since the last IPSOS indyref poll.
Don't BT use YouGov?
Saw something earlier re it was a union that paid for it National Collective @WeAreNational 12h
We're hearing strong rumours that @UK_Together are not publishing the results an @IpsosMORI poll they commissioned. #IndyRef Wings Over Scotland @WingsScotland 12h
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
Why do rumours of a good Yes poll have to come out just after I have updated my prediction to say no evidence at the moment of continuing movement to yes!? It's most inconsiderate.
The argument that we should just keep increasing taxes to pay for the ever increasing health bill is not one that I think is sustainable in the long term.
It might not be one you agree with, but why should it not be sustainable?
If we assume that the cost of the service is the same in both cases, then it is the same amount of money raised by either taxes or charges. The distinction between the two is then purely a political one of whether you wish to charge on an "equal" basis in terms of those who use the service most pay most, or on an "equal" basis in terms of those who can afford to make a greater contribution do so for the common good.
This is a political and philosophical argument, rather than one of inevitability.
Mr. Me, First off, sorry for the delay in replying. It was very rude of me to start a conversation just before going out on my morning walk. I apologise.
Yes, I suppose it is a political and philosophical argument, but perhaps not on the terms you outline because there is a huge practicality issue that sooner or later has to be faced.
Put simply, there is a limit to how much people are prepared to pay in taxes. There is no limit to the demands people are prepared to make on the Health service. There is also no foreseeable limit on the rate of medical advance or the costs of future treatments. Therefore, as I said in my first post this morning, at some stage, probably in the not too distant future, we are going to need a grown up debate on how good health care can be provided for all.
Some may argue that we just increase taxes and keep doing so. Personally, I think that strategy will fail. If the tax take was infinite why doesn't HMG just bang up taxes now, to say a starting rate of 33% and a top rate of say 95%? Clear the deficit in a year and lots of money for public services and we would be living in a land of milk and honey, would we not? Except we wouldn't, we know this because we have had those tax rates before. It didn't work then in a world that was a lot less mobile than the one we current live in, so why should it work now.
If the health service is to continue to treat people on the basis of need and not the ability to pay AND provide good treatment (and as a heavy user of it, I bloody well hope it will) then the way it is managed and paid for will have to change. Potentially charging those who can pay a nominal fee for seeing their GP is a step in that direction.
Just a note of caution. What new illegal substance will be developed to replace these lost drug revenues? What's the likely toxicity/addictiveness. Thionite anyone?
That's not how economics works. If the alternative illegal substances are profitable then people would go into it anyway, regardless of whether or not marijuana is profitable.
Interesting watching the pan-EU polling seeing how steady the trend is. Watching campaigns you never know how much is down to the various announcements and gaffes and how much is just underlying trends, which the media try to hook onto the announcements and gaffes because it makes their horse-race reporting look more meaningful. This is a good test case because nobody is taking any notice of the pan-European campaign, so if the voters are moving in sync then it has to be the underlying trends.
I guess we'll see how Cameron responds to the jibe that he lacks intellectual self-confidence today. Not sure what turning red will tell us about it either way, though.
Perhaps he'll quote Francis Bacon:
There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool.
Comments
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFBKVmJGYkhwYTRFeGpVZlg2bTRIZUE#gid=0
45 parties/groupings are contesting the London local elections, plus independents and candidates with no description:
Lab 1,851, Con 1,812, LD 1,320, Green 844, UKIP 465, TUSC 196, Ind 90,
CPA 61, BNP 52, Ind Lab Group (Harrow) 47, Tower Hamlets First 44,
People Before Profit 22, No Descr 16, All People's Party 16, Hornchurch Res Ass 12,
Community (Hounslow) 7, Keep Our St Helier Hosp 6,
Havering Res Ass 6, South Hornchurch Ind Local Res Grp 6,
Upminster & Cranham Res Ass 6, Harold Wood Hill Park Res Ass 5,
Communist 5, Socialist Party GB 4, SLP 3, Ind Loxford 3,
Rainham & Wennington Ind Res Grp 3, Northwood Hills Comm Champions 3,
Mitcham Ind 3, Pettits Res Ass 3, Merton Park Ward Ind Res 3, Liberal 3, Nat Lib Party 3,
Europeans Party 2, Patients Not Profits 2, Eng Dem 1, Left Unity 1, Red Flag 1,
Peace Party 1, Save King George Hosp 1, UK Ind Now 1, British Dem Party 1,
Ind Voice for Willesden Res 1, Dem Reform Party 1, Communities United 1,
NF 1, Pirate 1, Putting Croydon First 1
Total candidates: 6,937
Total wards: 629
Total seats: 1,851
The Thurrock bit starts at 4:43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHwSyEFjggc
*now I have very generously allowed 31 May after he squirmed. Otherwise he is already wrong
It took about 5 seconds of googling to find this:
http://www.keithrowe.info/policies/nhs-policy/
"The NHS is valued by the people of this country, admired and envied by others. The principle of treatment free at the point of delivery is non-negotiable" - UKIP
Labour candidate lying about UKIP? Surely not
I'd predict sustained crossover towards end of Q1 next year. Whether it is soon enough / wide enough, who knows...
But I'm still going to win dinner off Mr Llama.
Surely the problem you are describing is the one that beset the Co-oP and gives problems for other mutuals.
Have you ever received ballot forms from an insurance company, a pension provider or even a company of which you are a shareholder and have not returned them?
Everyone else is odds on
Sadly, however, most of the companies require the investor has to proactive contact their manager to provide instructions, so inertia leads to nothing happening.
But why not answer my question: why does someone who has a fund manager make their investments (including, for instance, me) not be permitted to vote?
Lab 39 (-3)
Con 31 (+2)
Lib 9 (-1)
Kip 21 (-7)
I make no partisan point, just an FYI. That said, if I were a Kipper, I'd think Populus had it in for me...
Not heard that one before and I'd be amazed if any party campaigned on that platform. However, if we are ever to have a sensible debate about how good health care can be provided for all in the future then it is an idea that will have to be looked at.
Take the GP service for example. Most people could afford to chip in a tenner to see their GP. If everyone who could afford it did then the sums raised would be very significant, probably more than cover the cost of the service. A spin off might also be that the service would actually improve (if my vet treated his patients the way some GPs do their's he would be out of business very quickly).
Barking & Dagenham
Bromley
Croydon
Havering
Hillingdon
Sutton
It looks like about 62% of London voters will have the opportunity to vote for at least one UKIP candidate in the local elections. I make it they're standing at least one candidate in 387 wards out of 629.
Racked up huge debts with unsuitable people at the helm
Remember this was the model bank that Ed wanted the rest to follow - I guess as it was modelled on every Labour administration ever.
But don't forget that the costs of everyone doing this would be high and that all eats into the investment performance
Asking all tourists to have private health insurance is an interesting one.
Southampton Itchen
1/4 Labour
11/4 Cons
66 UKIP
100 LD
Chesterfield
1/16 Lab
8 LD
100 Cons
100 UKIP
St Austell & Newquay
1/2 Cons
6/4 LD
25 UKIP
100 Lab
Wirral West
4/6 Lab
11/10 Cons
100 LD
100 UKIP
An economy based not on the short-term, fast buck, take what you can. But on long-termism, patient investment, and responsibility shared by all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9386288/Ed-Miliband-calls-for-bank-reforms-speech-in-full.html
Before dealing with the genuinely difficult issue of how institutional shareholders vote at AGMs, the government should address a much easier problem, namely the disgrace of the disenfranchisement of ordinary shareholders who hold their shares via nominee accounts (which is basically everyone nowadays, since it's near-impossible in practice for most ordinary shareholders not to use nominee accounts, and legally impossible for shares held in ISAs).
This is a pure IT issue, and really should be addressed ASAP. In fact the last Labour government did propose to do so, and got as far as a public consultation, but for some reason they bottled out. It is regrettable that the coalition haven't picked this up again - it really isn't hard, although obviously there would have to be a period of a couple of years before going live to allow IT systems to be updated.
Memo to George and Vince: Just do it.
Furthermore, most evidence on healthcare is that early detection and prevention saves loads of money - so why would you want to introduce a charge for seeing the GP and dissuade people from seeking medical advice early on? You'd just increase costs for the NHS down the road.
Backed Labour too, and UKIP @ 100 to cover.
Lib Dems I wouldn't back at 10,000-1.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-we-ukip-members-dont-deserve-this-racism-slur-9326954.html
This guy comes across very well on tv, I wonder whether he will stand in the next GE?
http://www.stevenwoolfe.co.uk/
..and UKIP are the target!
'Badly behaved men on a stag night': is this what the Tories think of their own voters supporting Ukip in the European elections?
To be fair the person who said it says he was taken out of context
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/badly-behaved-men-on-a-stag-night-is-this-what-the-tories-think-of-ukip-voters-9328472.html
As for collecting the cash being such a problem and cost, just about every other country in the world manages it. I don't see why the UK should find it so difficult.
The argument that we should just keep increasing taxes to pay for the ever increasing health bill is not one that I think is sustainable in the long term.
If we assume that the cost of the service is the same in both cases, then it is the same amount of money raised by either taxes or charges. The distinction between the two is then purely a political one of whether you wish to charge on an "equal" basis in terms of those who use the service most pay most, or on an "equal" basis in terms of those who can afford to make a greater contribution do so for the common good.
This is a political and philosophical argument, rather than one of inevitability.
Not a lot in there for PB readers tbh. Indeed, without sucking up unduly, the comparison between that piece and the recent posts by antifrank on his own site is positively embarrassing.
I think online might well be useless for determining UKIP VI tbh.
THe thing is whn people are called, UKIP get about 70 'raw' numbers or so - far less than every single online poll. So clearly thre has to b adjustment, how much is the question.
O/T Has anyone had any thoughts on Eurovision betting? Am thinking of laying Russia at 5/2 on Betfair as the voting is so political, not to mention being jolly entertaining to boot.
If 56% of the blazers are now saying they'll stick with Bottler for the GE, it suggests that actually, on 2010 performance, only about 42% will. So they'll get about, what, 12% in 2015.
I suspect, however, that in reality, rather more of their vote than this will leach away over the next year. In 2010 it was abundantly clear that Bottler and his party were just comedy candidates, with little prospect of making any sort of material impact given where Labour was polling. So it proved. In 2015, in contrast, the risks of voting blazer are quite acute. Labour is at 35%, can win a majority even if it comes second and thus every anti-Labour seat counts. Voting for the blazers risks the return of a Labour government, a heinous consequence that was very clearly not on the cards in 2010.
In view of this, I reckon nothing like 56% or even 42% will stick with Bottler for 2015. South of 18%, i.e. fewer than last time, would be my guess, producing a GE showing in the 5 to 8% range.
Euros - UKIP to win with high 20s, Lab and Con within 3 of each other in the twenties
Sindy - Yes 47.5, No 52.5, not sensing any continuing movement to yes at the moment
GE - Lab largest party, 15 short, coalition with rump Lib Dems, back to the polls in a year, Dave gone, Kipper/Tory entente cordial (note the relative silence of the Tories on racistgate). Swing back pending.
You are also assuming that central government is more efficient at collection and distribution, that the introduction of new incentives (i.e. direct fees) won't change GPs behaviour and that increased taxes won't influence taxpayers' behaviour
The purpose of opinion polling is to try to find out what other people think, because one cannot reliably extrapolate from one's own opinions to those of other people. What makes you think that the majority of UKIP-voters will come to see the world the way you do in time for polling day, given that we have evidence that they disagree with you today?
After the Euros the L/Ds will have to decide whether to ditch their leader.Whether they decide to do so could determine the eventual outcome in 2015.
General comment-the old supposed quote attributed to Confucius about living in interesting times.Interesting times indeed and the original quote may have come from Jung.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A807374
Popbitch is very keen on it and have been flagging up how well the city of Leicester has done this year.
Winners of: football championship, great British bake off, British sewing bee, x factor, world snooker championship, premiership rugby. Molly is also from Leicester.
What an extraordinary piece of special pleading.
I never read it once, and forgot I had done it.
Just looked at my bank statement, and the subscription has been renewed! Is there any way out of it?
Phoning apple wasn't a pleasant experience, a computer told me to look on the website, and the website wont allow me to ask because I don't have the latest version of firefox!
On the verge of smashing the room up!
A genealogy website renewed itself once, costing me about £200.
They might be reasonable, but then again.....
I say "traditionally" because UKIP's remarkable success in becoming the NOTA party (a counterparty to Ed's failure in collecting opposition to the government of course) has sucked in a lot of supporters who probably care a lot less about the EU.
It may well be that assumptions that the UKIP supporter genuinely cares about the Euros (unlike everyone else) and is therefore much more likely to turn out are misplaced. It shows how important it is for Nigel to keep his bandwaggon rolling and to enthuse people with jumping on.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHNjRUpXY2ZYamVrVlJPbmRNdzNTd0E&usp=sheets_web#gid=0
They'll point out they sent you an email a month before telling you about your subscriptions that are about to auto-renew.
email address was from a firm I left 5 years ago!
Nevermind
It seems I somehow renewed it last year although I have absolutely no recollection of doing so and it has been suggested that the direct debit might have been used. It is possible I simply did what I almost did this year. Checking SOs on your account occasionally is a good investment.
UK but the value has gone.
Austria maybe be worth an each way punt. I've gone outright and each way.
Iceland is the one. I've worked out if they win, I'd win 15k. For about 40 quids worth of stake.
Last night you could get 500/1 with Skybet and 37.5/1 on an each way.
http://tinyurl.com/m5ppsg9
They look like the sort that appeals to Eurovision watchers.
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/truth-is-first-casualty-in-war-so-too.html
BJB believes this will fall to below 10%, whereas the polling evidence is that it will rise substantially.
It is not I who is defying the trend or pattern.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/prime-minister-is-toxic-to-the-no-campaign-insist-labour.24158067
'The comments will be seen as a sign of increased tensions within the anti-independence campaign and in particular between Labour and the Conservatives.
The Labour source insisted the presence of Mr Cameron north of the Border was a big negative to the No campaign, which, he claimed, would win in spite of him.
He added: "Cameron is toxic. Everyone knows that."'
Bring it on.
They are the party with effectively everything to lose in the event of Scottish independence.
Blind to Iraq aftermath
Blind to the effects of unlimited immigration
Blind to the rise of unhinged mentalists to leader and hence PM
Blind to the effects of benefits for all
Blind to the Co op
Blind to anything other than Lab maj nailed on in 2015
Totally unsurprising that they are blind to Sindy.
UKIP are plugging "check the bottom of your ballot paper for UKIP".
http://www.ukip.org/check_the_bottom_of_your_ballot_paper_for_ukip
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2014/04/10/grand-closing-americas-pot-farmers-cut-out-cartels
http://www.electio2014.eu/pollsandscenarios/pollsblog
EPP 216
PES 205
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/180314#.U2oLToFdU34
They could be on for 5, maybe 6 percent next year!
One more heave....
One or other of the companies did this to me a couple of years ago and I noticed it as I had insured for that year elsewhere and they refunded me the duplicate premium in full (as they effing well ought to have have done).
National Collective @WeAreNational 12h
We're hearing strong rumours that @UK_Together are not publishing the results an @IpsosMORI poll they commissioned. #IndyRef
Wings Over Scotland @WingsScotland 12h
@doug_johnstone @WeAreNational @Smicht Except that time we're led to believe it was a trade union that commissioned the poll.
It's most inconsiderate.
Yes, I suppose it is a political and philosophical argument, but perhaps not on the terms you outline because there is a huge practicality issue that sooner or later has to be faced.
Put simply, there is a limit to how much people are prepared to pay in taxes. There is no limit to the demands people are prepared to make on the Health service. There is also no foreseeable limit on the rate of medical advance or the costs of future treatments. Therefore, as I said in my first post this morning, at some stage, probably in the not too distant future, we are going to need a grown up debate on how good health care can be provided for all.
Some may argue that we just increase taxes and keep doing so. Personally, I think that strategy will fail. If the tax take was infinite why doesn't HMG just bang up taxes now, to say a starting rate of 33% and a top rate of say 95%? Clear the deficit in a year and lots of money for public services and we would be living in a land of milk and honey, would we not? Except we wouldn't, we know this because we have had those tax rates before. It didn't work then in a world that was a lot less mobile than the one we current live in, so why should it work now.
If the health service is to continue to treat people on the basis of need and not the ability to pay AND provide good treatment (and as a heavy user of it, I bloody well hope it will) then the way it is managed and paid for will have to change. Potentially charging those who can pay a nominal fee for seeing their GP is a step in that direction.
There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool.