The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
If you think there are shy leave voters here its nothing on Northern Ireland 'They havent gone away you know'
37% of voters told belfast telegraph poll 'dont know' which seems the referendum equivalent of saying you are voting alliance which apparently was commonplace as people were not sure if whoever was phoning was a pollster or one or other lot of paramilitary nutters.
The large alliance vote in the opinion polls never materialised in the secrecy of the?ballot box alas.
John Curtice has also done a list of the areas most and least likely to vote leave. I was given a slightly potted version of this last night. His estimate is that if there is something close to parity overall then Dumfries & Galloway should be 50:50 and Bradford 51% leave. Cambridge, in his estimation will only vote 19% leave and Boston should vote 69% leave.
I don't have the complete list but he is expecting every single Scottish result to favour Leave.
Scotland - is that a typo? If not surely thats huge news
Dumfries & Galloway isn't representative of Scotland. It's the only district in Scotland that I'd expect to be very close.
Scottish Borders and Angus both at 45% leave which is pretty high. But yes, it is the closest of the Scottish areas.
The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
It looks as if Unionists are now shifting very heavily towards Leave.
Troubling for remain. NI isn't solid, Wales isn't solid, they're reliant on young people coming out in droves. Leave are definitely a better chance than is thought. England else's, excluding London, is going to be heavily leave.
If Unionists go 80/20 Leave and Nationalists and Others go 90/10 Remain, that gives 54/46 Remain overall.
The Unionists are divided, the DUP back Leave, the UUP Remain
The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
Where the hell is voting Remain on a 50:50 basis then?
Off topic: I'm 24 years old with 3 years no claims, and my best car insurance renewal for a 8 year old, 1.2 litre Ford Fiesta is still over £800!
Maybe I should vote brexit for a chance of improvement!
Interestingly it was an EU decision that forced insurers to rate males and females the same for motor insurance. So: good news if you're a man, bad news if you're a woman.
(It was also an EU edict that forced the regulation of insurance by the FSA (now FCA) with the result that you get about ten tons of paper when you buy an insurance policy.)
This amount of paper is going to increase in August when the CMA forces all insurance companies offering a protected no claims bonus to disclose the notional cost, the discount you get for the protected bonus, the number of claims for which you get protection and the step-back bonus scale if you don't buy the product.
No one really wants to know all this, they just want the cheapest, rubbishy cover they can find.
As a broker, I will have to submit ALL the no claims bonus scales of every company I use to the CMA - despite them getting exactly the same information from 3000 other brokers.
True, but if you didn't do that someone somewhere would game the system... Best to have 3000 identical pieces of data than 1 version with odd undocumented variances...
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
Mr. Meeks, I'm mildly surprised it's priced differently on grounds of gender. Pretty sure that was ruled (*cough*bytheEU*cough*) illegal for annuities, despite the differing life expectancies of men and women.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
I've just read the Hilton quote about Cameron being told by the CS in 2012 that it was impossible to reduce immigration to 100,000 while we were in the EU. Yet it became "no ifs, no buts" and in the 2015 Tory manifesto.
Yes, I know it's politics, so lying is to be expected, but this was so blatant. It's shows the derision in which they must hold the voters. We're too thick anyway so we won't notice. And it's a good soundbite.
I notice it's now become an 'ambition', and in two years time, it will always have been only an ambition. You're got a faulty memory, obviously. Would any Cameron supporter like to defend this? .
Hilton on Sky carefully avoided directly calling Cameron a liar - but the message was very clear, Dave's a liar.
The Guardian has countered with George Soros saying it'll be another ERM mess with knobs on. I'm more intrigued as to why Soros isn't keeping this to himself. He made billions back in the 90s on just that one day alone.
And we've a thwarted suicide bomber attack in Belgium. Glad I don't live there.
Most of us remember two things about "Black Wednesday". One was the dramatic cut in interest rates that followed, signalling the start of a 15 year boom. The other is that George Soros made a fortune on that day by laying the pound!
Soros is saying that because our economy is debt riddled and with piddly interest rates, it'll be tougher. I'm not sure how much such a story will resonate. As you say, if you were there for Black Wednesday - it was Major's intransigence/desperate attempts to catch a falling knife that lead to Soros almost breaking the BoE.
If the economy is riddled with debt and low interest rates, almost all that's left is to devalue the currency. This would encourage local manufacturing and exporting while increasing the price of imports, making them less attractive. Would probably cause some welcome short term inflation as the economy rebalanced too. I'm struggling to see the massive downside here, although I will admit to being paid in dollars and having a mortgage in sterling!
I'd also imagine that the GBP/EUR rate won't change an awful lot. If we vote to leave then both will fall against the USD and YEN
That was my thinking too. I'm sure our money-men here can throw some light on it.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
Where the hell is voting Remain on a 50:50 basis then?
The bottom shares of Leave on a 50:50 basis that I have (not complete) are:
The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
It looks as if Unionists are now shifting very heavily towards Leave.
Troubling for remain. NI isn't solid, Wales isn't solid, they're reliant on young people coming out in droves. Leave are definitely a better chance than is thought. England else's, excluding London, is going to be heavily leave.
If Unionists go 80/20 Leave and Nationalists and Others go 90/10 Remain, that gives 54/46 Remain overall.
I'll trust your math, but remain will not winengland outside London, they need to rack up as many big wins elsewhere as much as they can, even though sheer numbers are not high.
Remain will still win big in Cardiff, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, Brighton & Hove, Bristol, Nottingham,Newcastle, Sheffield, and Manchester. I'm not so sure about Liverpool. They'll also win big in St. Alban's, Exeter, Oxford, Cambridge, Reading, York, Norwich. I'd expect Remain to win 27 out of 32 London boroughs.
The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
If you think there are shy leave voters here its nothing on Northern Ireland 'They havent gone away you know'
37% of voters told belfast telegraph poll 'dont know' which seems the referendum equivalent of saying you are voting alliance which apparently was commonplace as people were not sure if whoever was phoning was a pollster or one or other lot of paramilitary nutters.
The large alliance vote in the opinion polls never materialised in the secrecy of the?ballot box alas.
My guess on Northern Ireland is that Republicans would be overwhelmingly for Remain (perhaps 85%), while Unionists would be at least 6:40 for Leave.
My only Northern Irish friend (as in friend who lives in Northern Ireland rather than friend of Northern Irish extract), who lives about a mile and a half from the border, is voting Remain because he thinks border controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland would be a disaster for his business and the local economy.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
I've always wondered why it isn't. Perhaps there is no evidence to suggest any correlation (in any direction), but even if there was I reckon the insurers wouldn't dare to go down that route because of the backlash that would follow.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the ECJ ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
Mr. F, I'm in the Leeds counting area, but suspect this little patch (Parliamentary constituency) will be for Leave. It's got a strong-ish UKIP presence, old Labour sorts and the Conservative MP is a Leaver.
Possible that other outlying areas included in the counting areas of major cities might make things closer (or the reverse, of course).
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
I think the annuity one was the most egregious. I don't think it is discriminatory to do something based on the fact that women live longer than men.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
And when we do young men will be back paying more (unless the ECJ is its wisdom rules that evidence has to be ignored too).
Does Mr Beckham seriously think that either the UK or EU would wish to limit freedom of movement of internationally recognised experts in their field earning seven-figure salaries?
The other thing I found surprising on the list was that on a 50:50 basis he is forecasting Northern Ireland to be 53% leave. I thought Northern Ireland was much more committed to remain.
It looks as if Unionists are now shifting very heavily towards Leave.
The Republic of Ireland voted against EU treaties in the past. That must at least of been heavily covered in NI news, so they wouldn't see a Leave vote as extreme, or odd.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
I think the annuity one was the most egregious. I don't think it is discriminatory to do something based on the fact that women live longer than men.
Yes, another ridiculous disregard of the facts in pursuit of some equalitarian dream.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
And when we do young men will be back paying more (unless the ECJ is its wisdom rules that evidence has to be ignored too).
The market is very efficient at finding ways to circumvent silly regulations.
We'll ask you some questions that correlate very well with whether you're a man or a woman... and use them to determine your insurance.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
That's already being offered, targeted at high risk groups such as young drivers, drivers with convictions and high performance cars. It also allows for more risk criteria to be added, for example curfews and no-go zones. https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/black-box-insurance/ I guess it will be a slippery slope though, so a few years down the line it will be almost impossible to get insurance for anything without the black box.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
Either you have a flat insurance tax and everyone pays the same rate, or you make a statistical assessment of the risk and price accordingly.
As so many things correlate with race (or age or sex), the latter approach ends up with indirect racism (or ageism or sexism).
THE ECJ ruling as reported by Enjineeya makes little sense. For example, you can't change whether you have poor eyesight, or suffer from a medical condition that makes you a high risk, or are subject to ADHD.
I am not even sure whether you can easily change where you live in meaningful way. Of course, you can move from one similar area to another, but you can't easily move from a low-income area to a high-income area.
Consider moving the problem into the physical sciences, where you have a sequence of data and are trying to identify a signal. A proper Bayesian will use all the prior information to assess the probability of a positive signal (or a reckless driver).
The ECJ ruling is exactly what a lawyer with no mathematical or statistical training would come up with.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
That's already being offered, targeted at high risk groups such as young drivers, drivers with convictions and high performance cars. It also allows for more risk criteria to be added, for example curfews and no-go zones. https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/black-box-insurance/ I guess it will be a slippery slope though, so a few years down the line it will be almost impossible to get insurance for anything without the black box.
As a fund manager, I get to meet the management of insurance companies (we own one), and discuss this stuff. We were told that within two years, they'd be very strongly pushed ("install this box and get a 20% discount"!), and that within five years, it will be next to impossible to get insurance without one.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
Nuneaton will surely comfortably vote Leave, if Leave cannot win Nuneaton they may as well pack up and go home. Plenty of white working class voters there. Of the earlier declarations areas like Sunderland and Nuneaton should vote Leave and Wandsworth Remain if they do we know it could be close, if not one side has a clear lead
If Wandsworth heads leave, it is all over too
Yes if Nuneaton or Sunderland goes Remain or Wandsworth Leave it is all over
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
And when we do young men will be back paying more (unless the ECJ is its wisdom rules that evidence has to be ignored too).
The market is very efficient at finding ways to circumvent silly regulations.
We'll ask you some questions that correlate very well with whether you're a man or a woman... and use them to determine your insurance.
It wouldn't work. Which is why black boxes are the solution to them....
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
Are you are really so big a fool? How would you implement this policy ? Don't you think men would just get women to buy the booze?
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
Either you have a flat insurance tax and everyone pays the same rate, or you make a statistical assessment of the risk and price accordingly.
As so many things correlate with race (or age or sex), the latter approach ends up with indirect racism (or ageism or sexism).
THE ECJ ruling as reported by Enjineeya makes little sense. For example, you can't change whether you have poor eyesight, or suffer from a medical condition that makes you a high risk, or are subject to ADHD.
I am not even sure whether you can easily change where you live in meaningful way. Of course, you can move from one similar area to another, but you can't easily move from a low-income area to a high-income area.
Consider moving the problem into the physical sciences, where you have a sequence of data and are trying to identify a signal. A proper Bayesian will use all the prior information to assess the probability of a positive signal (or a reckless driver).
The ECJ ruling is exactly what a lawyer with no mathematical or statistical training would come up with.
I think that's why more lawyers than mathematicians run our country. Thank goodness.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
And when we do young men will be back paying more (unless the ECJ is its wisdom rules that evidence has to be ignored too).
The market is very efficient at finding ways to circumvent silly regulations.
We'll ask you some questions that correlate very well with whether you're a man or a woman... and use them to determine your insurance.
It wouldn't work. Which is why black boxes are the solution to them....
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
And when we do young men will be back paying more (unless the ECJ is its wisdom rules that evidence has to be ignored too).
We'll ask you some questions that correlate very well with whether you're a man or a woman... and use them to determine your insurance.
Does Mr Beckham seriously think that either the UK or EU would wish to limit freedom of movement of internationally recognised experts in their field earning seven-figure salaries?
I expect there'll be a few more popular big names to come out for Remain over the next 48 hours.
Remain have clearly been working this hard over the last week, and using the downtime on Friday and Saturday effectively.
PS. I see Charlotte Leslie MP has come out for Leave this morning. Not much coverage.
I've just read the Hilton quote about Cameron being told by the CS in 2012 that it was impossible to reduce immigration to 100,000 while we were in the EU. Yet it became "no ifs, no buts" and in the 2015 Tory manifesto.
Yes, I know it's politics, so lying is to be expected, but this was so blatant. It's shows the derision in which they must hold the voters. We're too thick anyway so we won't notice. And it's a good soundbite.
I notice it's now become an 'ambition', and in two years time, it will always have been only an ambition. You're got a faulty memory, obviously. Would any Cameron supporter like to defend this? .
Hilton on Sky carefully avoided directly calling Cameron a liar - but the message was very clear, Dave's a liar.
The Guardian has countered with George Soros saying it'll be another ERM mess with knobs on. I'm more intrigued as to why Soros isn't keeping this to himself. He made billions back in the 90s on just that one day alone.
And we've a thwarted suicide bomber attack in Belgium. Glad I don't live there.
Most of us remember two things about "Black Wednesday". One was the dramatic cut in interest rates that followed, signalling the start of a 15 year boom. The other is that George Soros made a fortune on that day by laying the pound!
Soros is saying that because our economy is debt riddled and with piddly interest rates, it'll be tougher. I'm not sure how much such a story will resonate. As you say, if you were there for Black Wednesday - it was Major's intransigence/desperate attempts to catch a falling knife that lead to Soros almost breaking the BoE.
If the economy is riddled with debt and low interest rates, almost all that's left is to devalue the currency. This would encourage local manufacturing and exporting while increasing the price of imports, making them less attractive. Would probably cause some welcome short term inflation as the economy rebalanced too. I'm struggling to see the massive downside here, although I will admit to being paid in dollars and having a mortgage in sterling!
I'd also imagine that the GBP/EUR rate won't change an awful lot. If we vote to leave then both will fall against the USD and YEN
That was my thinking too. I'm sure our money-men here can throw some light on it.
It would certainly be logical. Brexit is breaking up a mutually beneficial partnership so both partners will lose out if it happens.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
Are you are really so big a fool? How would you implement this policy ? Don't you think men would just get women to buy the booze?
You mean like putting a woman on your insurance policy, as we've heard suggested by the non-fools on here?
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
It's called "Ladies' Night", which if someone wanted to challenge in court is almost certainly illegal under discrimination laws.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Surely insurance rates should be based on actuarial and claims data? It's not discrimination if it's done on the basis of evidence, which is why the ruling on sex discrimination makes no sense.
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
That's already being offered, targeted at high risk groups such as young drivers, drivers with convictions and high performance cars. It also allows for more risk criteria to be added, for example curfews and no-go zones. https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/black-box-insurance/ I guess it will be a slippery slope though, so a few years down the line it will be almost impossible to get insurance for anything without the black box.
As a fund manager, I get to meet the management of insurance companies (we own one), and discuss this stuff. We were told that within two years, they'd be very strongly pushed ("install this box and get a 20% discount"!), and that within five years, it will be next to impossible to get insurance without one.
How long after that do we get self driving cars with ultra low insurance?
Just an aside but it's perverse the non-defection of Warsi got more coverage than Lord Guthrie. She 'switched' because she disliked the campaign [which doesn't actually alter anything about the vote or the UK's situation], he switched because he's concerned about a matter of substance [the EU army].
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
It's called "Ladies' Night", which if someone wanted to challenge in court is almost certainly illegal under discrimination laws.
Just been pointed out to me that the four page vote leave wraparound advert on the front and back of todays Metro handed out free all over London was, if you look at the small print on the back not anything to do with the Leave campaigns but 'promoted by JM Donaldson on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party both of [the same address in Belfast]" !
Mr. Sandpit, pro-female discrimination gets the nod.
Cf prison sentences, domestic abuse coverage and child custody. Even had that twonk Clegg claiming we really ought to have fewer female prisoners when there's more than 20 men in prison for every woman.
Mr. Royale, as I mentioned below with Guthrie, a Wollaston or Warsi jumping ship [if they were ever onboard] over style gets more coverage than someone going the other way over substance [Guthrie].
As a fund manager, I get to meet the management of insurance companies (we own one), and discuss this stuff. We were told that within two years, they'd be very strongly pushed ("install this box and get a 20% discount"!), and that within five years, it will be next to impossible to get insurance without one.
How long after that do we get self driving cars with ultra low insurance?
10-15 years would be my guess. 5-10 years if updates can be done over the air as Tesla do...
If I look at my new car Adaptive Cruise Control follows the car in front, £1000 gave me tools to keep it in lane and avoid me steering it into a car in the other lane if overtaking. I know that is used in the States to allow Audi's to do freeways by themselves...
I think motorways are covered. As google and others are showing the issue is towns....
I'm sure I've mentioned it before but the inevitable by Kevin Kelly is a good read for what the future will hold and why....
How long after that do we get self driving cars with ultra low insurance?
Within 20 years, you'll be getting a huge insurance uplift for wanting to drive your own car. And with a clause in the policy saying that insurance is invalidated if the black box records you were speeding at the time of the accident.
The days of motoring as a thing you can do for fun are numbered.
On the upside, it will kill the need to worry about speed cameras.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
Statistics are not individuals. There is nothing innate about age, race or sex that makes a middle aged white female driver automatically a lower risk than a young black male driver. Why should insurers be able to discriminate on such grounds when the rest of us can't?
Indeed, statistics are not individuals. Hence no claims bonuses, so those that individually outperform what would be expected of them using demographic and location data can individually benefit from their careful driving and secure parking.
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
I think this is likely to all be a non issue two years from now. We'll all have little black boxes in our cars that measure how we drive, and the number they generate will be the primary determinant of how much we pay.
That's already being offered, targeted at high risk groups such as young drivers, drivers with convictions and high performance cars. It also allows for more risk criteria to be added, for example curfews and no-go zones. https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/black-box-insurance/ I guess it will be a slippery slope though, so a few years down the line it will be almost impossible to get insurance for anything without the black box.
As a fund manager, I get to meet the management of insurance companies (we own one), and discuss this stuff. We were told that within two years, they'd be very strongly pushed ("install this box and get a 20% discount"!), and that within five years, it will be next to impossible to get insurance without one.
Exactly as I thought.
Hopefully self driving cars will eventually take most of the bad drivers off the road - although a successful SDC has to be truly autonomous and able to drive empty or back from the pub.
The semi-self-driving car that can hand control back to the driver at short notice is the worst of all worlds though, see numerous recent studies on the effects of "automation dependency" on pilots for the evidence - it's a real problem in commercial aviation and lots of work is being done to mitigate its effects.
Edit: another thought is that the black boxes will act as communication devices between human-driven cars and autonomous cars, feeding information to the SDCs about what the human-driven cars are up to. If this happens then they'll have to compulsory or chaos will ensue.
I am presuming that we will be getting turnout data well before the results? In which case, we should have an idea which way the result is going by the time of the first declarations.
Just an aside but it's perverse the non-defection of Warsi got more coverage than Lord Guthrie. She 'switched' because she disliked the campaign [which doesn't actually alter anything about the vote or the UK's situation], he switched because he's concerned about a matter of substance [the EU army].
It's a good point. It's very tempting to be turned off by both (obnoxious) campaigns and vote on the basis of what you thought of the campaign. I strongly object to the conduct of Remain and some of the totalitarian arguments it puts forward.
Does Mr Beckham seriously think that either the UK or EU would wish to limit freedom of movement of internationally recognised experts in their field earning seven-figure salaries?
PS. I see Charlotte Leslie MP has come out for Leave this morning. Not much coverage.
That is a surprise. I had her down as a Cameron loyalist.
Just been pointed out to me that the four page vote leave wraparound advert on the front and back of todays Metro handed out free all over London was, if you look at the small print on the back not anything to do with the Leave campaigns but 'promoted by JM Donaldson on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party both of [the same address in Belfast]" !
Mr. Jonathan, yeah, that would be depressing. Both campaigns have stretched the truth, embellished, exaggerated and misled.
What matters is voting on what is in the UK's interests. Of course, that's a judgement call, but the campaigns aren't on the ballot paper, and it's a rather serious vote.
Does Mr Beckham seriously think that either the UK or EU would wish to limit freedom of movement of internationally recognised experts in their field earning seven-figure salaries?
PS. I see Charlotte Leslie MP has come out for Leave this morning. Not much coverage.
That is a surprise. I had her down as a Cameron loyalist.
Hopefully self driving cars will eventually take most of the bad drivers off the road - although a successful SDC has to be truly autonomous and able to drive empty or back from the pub.
The semi-self-driving car that can hand control back to the driver at short notice is the worst of all worlds though, see numerous recent studies on the effects of "automation dependency" on pilots for the evidence - it's a real problem in commercial aviation and lots of work is being done to mitigate its effects.
Edit: another thought is that the black boxes will act as communication devices between human-driven cars and autonomous cars, feeding information to the SDCs about what the human-driven cars are up to. If this happens then they'll have to compulsory or chaos will ensue.
I always thought you would need realtime chatter between the cars. I believe both Google and Tesla claim its not necessary as Radar gives you all you need and there will always be cars that don't have it.
Hence as it will always need radar to protect itself from the few cars that don't have it, you may as well use it all the time...
@chrislockwd: Sorry to again hear Hilton and Gove putting immigration front and centre of Leave today. They do sound awfully like Farage.
Does that mean that REMAIN must win? What does another twitt from The Economist mag's staff add to the sum of human knowledge when they are all rabid europhiles?
How long after that do we get self driving cars with ultra low insurance?
Within 20 years, you'll be getting a huge insurance uplift for wanting to drive your own car. And with a clause in the policy saying that insurance is invalidated if the black box records you were speeding at the time of the accident.
The days of motoring as a thing you can do for fun are numbered.
On the upside, it will kill the need to worry about speed cameras.
Yes. Expect to see a rise in the number of circuits and private roads like the Nurburgring, several of which have already sprung up in the US. They will be the only place a man can drive his old fashioned human-operated car in a couple of decades' time.
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
Are you are really so big a fool? How would you implement this policy ? Don't you think men would just get women to buy the booze?
Speaking from experience, men generally subsidise drinks for women, especially if you are wearing a push-up bra...
Mr. Jonathan, yeah, that would be depressing. Both campaigns have stretched the truth, embellished, exaggerated and misled.
What matters is voting on what is in the UK's interests. Of course, that's a judgement call, but the campaigns aren't on the ballot paper, and it's a rather serious vote.
The two campaigns have been totally dire, full of untruth and misinformation. I wonder how many people outside the politically engaged have truly sought to inform themselves about the question on the ballot paper? A sad episode in British politics.
@dats: Boris Johnson says he'll apologise if Brexit causes a recession, which I'm sure everyone will appreciate. https://t.co/qmvzR10nYP
Brexit impoverishes the UK, destroys our public services, reduces our armed forces to a couple of second hand tanks and a bayonet, marginalises us in a global world, attracts derision from our closest allies.....and what do we get back in return;
@politicshome: Boris Johnson on Nigel Farage's campaign: "I don’t like some of the xenophobic undertones." But says "insulting" not to discuss immigration.
Boris says it was xenophobic. Cue outrage from the Brexiteers...
"There are now more than 90,500 voters on the electoral register in East Hampshire, 3,000 more than the 2015 General Election figure. The number of people requesting postal and proxy votes has also increased significantly. The council has received 17,159 postal vote applications compared to 14,456 in 2015, and 1,199 proxy vote requests compared to the 2015 figure of 508."
I haven't read his piece, but I think the case that the UK economy is uniquely vulnerable does have some merit. I call this the Triple Deficit problem.
Of all the major economies in the world, we run by far the biggest current account deficit (current account is like trade balance, plus a few other things, such as investment income / cost). This means that to pay our bills, we need to import capital from abroad. This can be achieved in a number of ways: we can issue debt that is bought by foreigners, or we can sell assets (like expensive London real estate or British businesses). In both cases, however, the impact is that you bring capital into the UK now, but you set up a long-term stream of payments out of the UK. It becomes, therefore, a long-term tax on the UK economy.
Furthermore, we still have one of the worst budget deficits of the major economies. This means that we have remarkably little flexibility should things go wrong.
Finally, UK households are extremely indebted. Yes, yes, I know this is because house prices are so high in the UK. But this also brings with it fragility: imagine that UK housing moved down 25% in Sterling terms. (And I believe - and I realise I'm in a minority of one - that prime London could easily move 50%.)
The problem is a simple one: staying in the EU is likely to exacerbate these issues over time. Leaving the EU is likely to result in them being solved in an extremely painful and abrupt manner.
@chrislockwd: Sorry to again hear Hilton and Gove putting immigration front and centre of Leave today. They do sound awfully like Farage.
Does that mean that REMAIN must win? What does another twitt from The Economist mag's staff add to the sum of human knowledge when they are all rabid europhiles?
Gove is a repulsive little toad who would quite happily roast his children alive if it furthered his vanity project.
Steve Hilton- he of the Big Society. I don't know what Cameron did to him to induce this monumental betrayal in their personal friendship. Can anyone guess?
"There are now more than 90,500 voters on the electoral register in East Hampshire, 3,000 more than the 2015 General Election figure. The number of people requesting postal and proxy votes has also increased significantly. The council has received 17,159 postal vote applications compared to 14,456 in 2015, and 1,199 proxy vote requests compared to the 2015 figure of 508."
Implies turnout in the 70-75% bracket nationally, IMHO. But that's a huge extrapolation.
"Although the official figures are not in yet, SLDC believe that the electorate to be around 82,000 in the South Lakeland voting area - not too dissimilar to the figures for the General Election.
However, SLDC have seen an increase in the number of postal voters, with more than 20,000 registering to vote via post. This was an increase of about 2,500 on their 'normal' level."
Just been pointed out to me that the four page vote leave wraparound advert on the front and back of todays Metro handed out free all over London was, if you look at the small print on the back not anything to do with the Leave campaigns but 'promoted by JM Donaldson on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party both of [the same address in Belfast]" !
"There are now more than 90,500 voters on the electoral register in East Hampshire, 3,000 more than the 2015 General Election figure. The number of people requesting postal and proxy votes has also increased significantly. The council has received 17,159 postal vote applications compared to 14,456 in 2015, and 1,199 proxy vote requests compared to the 2015 figure of 508."
"There are now more than 90,500 voters on the electoral register in East Hampshire, 3,000 more than the 2015 General Election figure. The number of people requesting postal and proxy votes has also increased significantly. The council has received 17,159 postal vote applications compared to 14,456 in 2015, and 1,199 proxy vote requests compared to the 2015 figure of 508."
That's very useful information, especially given the voter re-registration that's happened since the GE. Turnout 70-75% is 3.6 on Betfair, 75-80% is 6.4.
This is supposedly a betting site, I posted a couple of weeks ago that with the exception of a handful very few on here have the foggiest understanding of betting. In the chart at the top Leave are ahead in 9 of 16 polls yet can be backed at 3/1. I've no idea what the outcome will be but anybody backing Remain at around 1/4 is a guesser.
They may well collect but backing 1/4 shots on the toss of a coin is the road to certain ruin.
Remain are a similar price to Germany beating N.Ireland tonight.
A point on this Curtice chap and 40/45%, does he think that is what Leave will get in terms of % votes or does he think that is the probability of Leave winning? Plenty don't understand the difference, perhaps he doesn't.
Yes, they may have been ahead in 9 of the 16 most recent polls, but only in 1 of the 4 most recent. That may somewhat explain the odds. Then you have to believe the polls are accurate, or that there won't be a swing to Remain on the day.
Oh, and I'm sure he knows the difference between probability of winning, and percentage share of vote.
At every point, the betting markets have overreacted to good news for Remain, and under reacted to good news for Leave. If the polls are correct, it's still very tight, whereas betting markets are implying a Remain lead of 55/45 or so.
That's not far away from the Curtice poll last night. But I do think Remain have some serious catching up to do: postal votes are heavily Leave, I should think.
Yes, every one thinks this, including me. However there is absolutely no factual evidence to back this up. Be aware of accepting widely held opinion as fact.
In terms of where the market are it, it's hard to marry it with polling. i suspect it's becoming quite disconnected with the fundamentals, it's of a size where the sheer weight of money already in the market is driving things. People attempting to cover positions or minimise loses. Perhaps even some profit taking.
At some point, people attempt to buy "free money" by backing a short priced favourite driving it way below value. As the price plummets, others rush in thinking there much be reasons behind it. Typical betfair "mug rush" behaviour to be avoided at any cost.
Postal votes will be heavily Leave because of the large number of older voters. The question is how many postal voters would change their minds later, assuming most of them voted during the period of maximum Leave? Are postal voters flightier or more determined than voters in person?
How would people feel if car insurance could be priced differentially on the ground of race?
It should be priced differentially on the grounds of risk, given that is what drives the cost. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the evidence shows that males are more likely to be in accidents than females, so can't see the problem in them being charged more.
The fundamental basis for the EJC ruling is that you cannot discriminate between people on factors that they cannot change - accidents of birth, if you will. You cannot (easily) change your sex or race, for example, but you can choose where you live, type of car, etc. Your driving record is, of course, also fair game.
That pesky ECJ with its sensible rulings.
You seriously think it is sensible that young men and young women have to pay the same for their car insurance when the statistics show that the former are much more likely to have an expensive crash than the latter?
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Why stop at insurance, then? What about booze? Why shouldn't we make it more expensive for men to drink than women?
Are you are really so big a fool? How would you implement this policy ? Don't you think men would just get women to buy the booze?
Speaking from experience, men generally subsidise drinks for women, especially if you are wearing a push-up bra...
Comments
37% of voters told belfast telegraph poll 'dont know' which seems the referendum equivalent of saying you are voting alliance which apparently was commonplace as people were not sure if whoever was phoning was a pollster or one or other lot of paramilitary nutters.
The large alliance vote in the opinion polls never materialised in the secrecy of the?ballot box alas.
Interesting times ahead, whatever the result. In fact, we've had very turbulent politics ever since Brown bottled the election in 2007.
My problem is the obvious disregard for the voters' intelligence. He basically said you are all thick b*stards, So I can say what I want..
https://twitter.com/nouriel/status/745085692837978115
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/745156858311151617
Car insurance is priced according to location.
He hummed and haahed, before suggesting that it was all the fault of his colleagues but "he didn't want to criticise".
Cambridge 19%
Oxford 21%
Camden 26%
Edinburgh 27%
Islington 27%
Biggies include Manchester at 34% leave, Liverpool at 40% and Glasgow at 35%.
My only Northern Irish friend (as in friend who lives in Northern Ireland rather than friend of Northern Irish extract), who lives about a mile and a half from the border, is voting Remain because he thinks border controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland would be a disaster for his business and the local economy.
I won't abandon my principles for less than a 10% saving. Otherwise it'd be disgusting.
Possible that other outlying areas included in the counting areas of major cities might make things closer (or the reverse, of course).
FWIW out here car insurance rates only look at the car, and insurance is generally for any driver. Rates for saloon cars are 4-5% of value, for 4x4s 6-7% and for sports cars 7-8%.
No wonder you believe Remain is the correct option. Maths trumped by equality laws. Absolutely absurd.
Better off out.
We'll ask you some questions that correlate very well with whether you're a man or a woman... and use them to determine your insurance.
https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/black-box-insurance/
I guess it will be a slippery slope though, so a few years down the line it will be almost impossible to get insurance for anything without the black box.
As so many things correlate with race (or age or sex), the latter approach ends up with indirect racism (or ageism or sexism).
THE ECJ ruling as reported by Enjineeya makes little sense. For example, you can't change whether you have poor eyesight, or suffer from a medical condition that makes you a high risk, or are subject to ADHD.
I am not even sure whether you can easily change where you live in meaningful way. Of course, you can move from one similar area to another, but you can't easily move from a low-income area to a high-income area.
Consider moving the problem into the physical sciences, where you have a sequence of data and are trying to identify a signal. A proper Bayesian will use all the prior information to assess the probability of a positive signal (or a reckless driver).
The ECJ ruling is exactly what a lawyer with no mathematical or statistical training would come up with.
Also, their simultaneous model had Remain at 55 on the telephone but 50 on web response.
In week three of their sample - the first after purdah - they started to find more leavers than remainers.
Lib Dem and Labour identifiers were 38% leave and 39% leave; Tory 52% and UKIP 96%. Greens were 25%, others 47%.
They don't appear to have checked registration or eligibility to vote.
Also, managerial and professional occupations are the only ones favouring Remain.
If the working class show up, Leave will win.
Remain have clearly been working this hard over the last week, and using the downtime on Friday and Saturday effectively.
PS. I see Charlotte Leslie MP has come out for Leave this morning. Not much coverage.
never, Never, NEVER!
Cf prison sentences, domestic abuse coverage and child custody. Even had that twonk Clegg claiming we really ought to have fewer female prisoners when there's more than 20 men in prison for every woman.
Mr. Royale, as I mentioned below with Guthrie, a Wollaston or Warsi jumping ship [if they were ever onboard] over style gets more coverage than someone going the other way over substance [Guthrie].
If I look at my new car Adaptive Cruise Control follows the car in front, £1000 gave me tools to keep it in lane and avoid me steering it into a car in the other lane if overtaking. I know that is used in the States to allow Audi's to do freeways by themselves...
I think motorways are covered. As google and others are showing the issue is towns....
I'm sure I've mentioned it before but the inevitable by Kevin Kelly is a good read for what the future will hold and why....
The days of motoring as a thing you can do for fun are numbered.
On the upside, it will kill the need to worry about speed cameras.
Hopefully self driving cars will eventually take most of the bad drivers off the road - although a successful SDC has to be truly autonomous and able to drive empty or back from the pub.
The semi-self-driving car that can hand control back to the driver at short notice is the worst of all worlds though, see numerous recent studies on the effects of "automation dependency" on pilots for the evidence - it's a real problem in commercial aviation and lots of work is being done to mitigate its effects.
Edit: another thought is that the black boxes will act as communication devices between human-driven cars and autonomous cars, feeding information to the SDCs about what the human-driven cars are up to. If this happens then they'll have to compulsory or chaos will ensue.
What matters is voting on what is in the UK's interests. Of course, that's a judgement call, but the campaigns aren't on the ballot paper, and it's a rather serious vote.
@dats: Boris Johnson says he'll apologise if Brexit causes a recession, which I'm sure everyone will appreciate. https://t.co/qmvzR10nYP
Hence as it will always need radar to protect itself from the few cars that don't have it, you may as well use it all the time...
"We currently have 77,875 people on the electoral register who are eligible to take part in the EU Referendum" (similar to GE2015)
"Almost 80 per cent of postal voters (@ 20.06) have returned their postal voting pack already which suggests that turnout will be high."
A Boris apology....
Boris says it was xenophobic. Cue outrage from the Brexiteers...
"There are now more than 90,500 voters on the electoral register in East Hampshire, 3,000 more than the 2015 General Election figure.
The number of people requesting postal and proxy votes has also increased significantly. The council has received 17,159 postal vote applications compared to 14,456 in 2015, and 1,199 proxy vote requests compared to the 2015 figure of 508."
I haven't read his piece, but I think the case that the UK economy is uniquely vulnerable does have some merit. I call this the Triple Deficit problem.
Of all the major economies in the world, we run by far the biggest current account deficit (current account is like trade balance, plus a few other things, such as investment income / cost). This means that to pay our bills, we need to import capital from abroad. This can be achieved in a number of ways: we can issue debt that is bought by foreigners, or we can sell assets (like expensive London real estate or British businesses). In both cases, however, the impact is that you bring capital into the UK now, but you set up a long-term stream of payments out of the UK. It becomes, therefore, a long-term tax on the UK economy.
Furthermore, we still have one of the worst budget deficits of the major economies. This means that we have remarkably little flexibility should things go wrong.
Finally, UK households are extremely indebted. Yes, yes, I know this is because house prices are so high in the UK. But this also brings with it fragility: imagine that UK housing moved down 25% in Sterling terms. (And I believe - and I realise I'm in a minority of one - that prime London could easily move 50%.)
The problem is a simple one: staying in the EU is likely to exacerbate these issues over time. Leaving the EU is likely to result in them being solved in an extremely painful and abrupt manner.
Steve Hilton- he of the Big Society. I don't know what Cameron did to him to induce this monumental betrayal in their personal friendship. Can anyone guess?
"Although the official figures are not in yet, SLDC believe that the electorate to be around 82,000 in the South Lakeland voting area - not too dissimilar to the figures for the General Election.
However, SLDC have seen an increase in the number of postal voters, with more than 20,000 registering to vote via post. This was an increase of about 2,500 on their 'normal' level."
Turnout 70-75% is 3.6 on Betfair, 75-80% is 6.4.