Thread header - yes, very hard to see either Con up to 40 or Lab as low as 31. But they have to keep the troops cheerful, in the "super-weapons are coming soon" sense.
Meanwhile, Ipsos-MORI say more than ever people are "proud of the NHS" and 77% think it "one of the best health services in the world". The folk who want to persuade people to support rethinking and radically reforming it should give up and take up cribbage - they'll find it a more satisfying experience.
Thread header - yes, very hard to see either Con up to 40 or Lab as low as 31. But they have to keep the troops cheerful, in the "super-weapons are coming soon" sense.
Meanwhile, Ipsos-MORI say more than ever people are "proud of the NHS" and 77% think it "one of the best health services in the world". The folk who want to persuade people to support rethinking and radically reforming it should give up and take up cribbage - they'll find it a more satisfying experience.
Then 77% people don't have a clue.
Basically you are saying that Labour can get into power if they can fool enough voters.
But OGH's persistent '2010 LIbDems who've switched to Labour' is misleading at best - as Kellner pointed out, they were Lab identifiers who voted tactically for the Lib Dems - not Lib Dems who tore up their membership cards.
Thats precisely why Mike is right, those people are even less likely to leave Labour.
That makes no sense. Those who were Lab supporters voting tactically for the LibDems must by definition (unless they're complete idiots) live in Con/LD marginals. If they move back to Labour that's good for the Tories, not bad.
The real focus should be on a completely different group - Labour-leaning people who voted LibDem in Con/Lab battlegrounds. They must have been doing the opposite of tactical voting. How they will behave in 2015 is a key question.
Good point. The next point is that the assumptions behind the required tory lead are that their vote will be as inefficient as the last time and that Labour's will be as efficient. I very much doubt that. Firstly, as you pointed out Labour supporters tending to return home rather than vote for Lib Dems will increase their votes but not their seats. Secondly, it seems inevitable that some of the piles of wasted votes in safe tory seats will go to UKIP.
In short I suspect the tory lead required for a majority at the next election will not be much bigger than the lead they had at the last one. Getting that will still not be easy though.
''He didn't just go along with Labour policy, he used green issues deliberately to detoxify himself and the Tory brand.''
Indeed. But here's the thing. How would the tories have done in 2010 if he hadn't followed labour into the long green grass? What would have happened if he said cheap energy comes before greenery?
And what would happen now if he broke with labour on greenery?
At the next election, UKIP _will_ be saying 'cheap energy comes before greenery'. "Vote UKIP for lower bills!"
I don't think the Cameroons will ditch their greenery.
"The Renewables Obligation is about to be phased out and replaced with a system that guarantees generation companies a minimum price - or "strike" price - for years to come."
''He didn't just go along with Labour policy, he used green issues deliberately to detoxify himself and the Tory brand.''
Indeed. But here's the thing. How would the tories have done in 2010 if he hadn't followed labour into the long green grass? What would have happened if he said cheap energy comes before greenery?
And what would happen now if he broke with labour on greenery?
At the next election, UKIP _will_ be saying 'cheap energy comes before greenery'. "Vote UKIP for lower bills!"
I don't think the Cameroons will ditch their greenery. The cuts rumoured for autumn seem be to non-green energy padding on the utility bills (insulation etc).
Freezing the fuel escalator is a quiet reversal of greenery.
''He didn't just go along with Labour policy, he used green issues deliberately to detoxify himself and the Tory brand.''
Indeed. But here's the thing. How would the tories have done in 2010 if he hadn't followed labour into the long green grass? What would have happened if he said cheap energy comes before greenery?
And what would happen now if he broke with labour on greenery?
At the next election, UKIP _will_ be saying 'cheap energy comes before greenery'. "Vote UKIP for lower bills!"
I don't think the Cameroons will ditch their greenery. The cuts rumoured for autumn seem be to non-green energy padding on the utility bills (insulation etc).
Insulation was all part of the green agenda, for the obvious reasons.
And yes, it should have come out of general taxation.
''He didn't just go along with Labour policy, he used green issues deliberately to detoxify himself and the Tory brand.''
Indeed. But here's the thing. How would the tories have done in 2010 if he hadn't followed labour into the long green grass? What would have happened if he said cheap energy comes before greenery?
And what would happen now if he broke with labour on greenery?
At the next election, UKIP _will_ be saying 'cheap energy comes before greenery'. "Vote UKIP for lower bills!"
I don't think the Cameroons will ditch their greenery. The cuts rumoured for autumn seem be to non-green energy padding on the utility bills (insulation etc).
Freezing the fuel escalator is a quiet reversal of greenery.
No it isn't. Cutting fuel duty would be a reversal.
They're just responding the notion that they've pushed the price to/beyond its limit.
But OGH's persistent '2010 LIbDems who've switched to Labour' is misleading at best - as Kellner pointed out, they were Lab identifiers who voted tactically for the Lib Dems - not Lib Dems who tore up their membership cards.
Thats precisely why Mike is right, those people are even less likely to leave Labour.
That makes no sense. Those who were Lab supporters voting tactically for the LibDems must by definition (unless they're complete idiots) live in Con/LD marginals. If they move back to Labour that's good for the Tories, not bad.
The real focus should be on a completely different group - Labour-leaning people who voted LibDem in Con/Lab battlegrounds. They must have been doing the opposite of tactical voting. How they will behave in 2015 is a key question.
Good point. The next point is that the assumptions behind the required tory lead are that their vote will be as inefficient as the last time and that Labour's will be as efficient. I very much doubt that. Firstly, as you pointed out Labour supporters tending to return home rather than vote for Lib Dems will increase their votes but not their seats. Secondly, it seems inevitable that some of the piles of wasted votes in safe tory seats will go to UKIP.
In short I suspect the tory lead required for a majority at the next election will not be much bigger than the lead they had at the last one. Getting that will still not be easy though.
Is there any evidence the Conservatives are moving to a more efficient vote distribution ? The marginal poll suggested not, they have made little progress in Scotland AFAICS and the economy is really only buoyant in the south. So big majorities is Surrey ( or lots of seats held despite UKIP ). But their real hope can only be a less benevolent distribution of the labour vote. If UKIP are taking votes from all as they claim and attracting more Labour voters now, oddly they could help the Tories in some seats in the Midlands and North.
@tim - Alternatively, you might say (well, not you) that it is refreshing to see a politician putting into practice, with his own money, that which is he is exhorting others to do.
you're right about the NHS. That's one thing the LDs should have dug in their heels on. Messing around with the HoL was a minor thing by comparison. Yes, it's full of doddering old fools but it doesn't directly affect anyone.
Yes, the NHS can be improved, but no one will ever trust the Tories to do it.
''He didn't just go along with Labour policy, he used green issues deliberately to detoxify himself and the Tory brand.''
Indeed. But here's the thing. How would the tories have done in 2010 if he hadn't followed labour into the long green grass? What would have happened if he said cheap energy comes before greenery?
And what would happen now if he broke with labour on greenery?
At the next election, UKIP _will_ be saying 'cheap energy comes before greenery'. "Vote UKIP for lower bills!"
I don't think the Cameroons will ditch their greenery. The cuts rumoured for autumn seem be to non-green energy padding on the utility bills (insulation etc).
Freezing the fuel escalator is a quiet reversal of greenery.
No it isn't. Cutting fuel duty would be a reversal.
They're just responding the notion that they've pushed the price to/beyond its limit.
That would be disappointing Pong. If the institutional buyers are squeezed to increase the retail owners and the total price is enough to get into the FTSE then lots of trackers will be looking for stock.
As someone who bought direct I am very much hoping that will cause a peak until at least Tuesday after which the price can do what it likes!
@Alanbrooke - I think it's more a case of Labour moving to a less efficient distribution (for example, by picking up lots of 2010 LibDem voters in existing Labour seats). We may also see, as DavidL suggests, Tory->UKIP leakage being higher in safe Tory seats, which would make the Tory vote more 'efficient'.
It's somewhat hypothetical, though. We can't yet know how voters will behave.
At the next election, UKIP _will_ be saying 'cheap energy comes before greenery'. "Vote UKIP for lower bills!"
If that is really true then its very interesting....
A powerful message, and it may be a popular one by 2015. It would also be workable from a technical POV - we know we can supply our energy from 'dirty' means. There would be problems in the rather stupendously unlikely event that UKIP were in a position to implement this:
1) International obligations wrt climate change. 2) Existing contracts with providers such as wind and biomass. 3) It would make us more reliant on gas and oil from unstable regimes. 4) It assumes that green energy isn't cheaper than gas and oil after 2015. Some may be.
I think (phew) my slightly previous assertion, that those applying for >£10k of shares to get zero, will turn out to be true
Well that includes me, so that's great. I can't expect much sympathy, given that (a) I have the cash to spare, so am basically evil; and (b) I was hoping to turn a quick profit - though it should be noted that this isn't risk-free.
However, one might expect HMG to act with something akin to a modicum of integrity (e.g. giving all retail investors the minimum), especially as they're selling off much larger chunks to institutional investors.
Thats precisely why Mike is right, those people are even less likely to leave Labour.
Good point. The next point is that the assumptions behind the required tory lead are that their vote will be as inefficient as the last time and that Labour's will be as efficient. I very much doubt that. Firstly, as you pointed out Labour supporters tending to return home rather than vote for Lib Dems will increase their votes but not their seats. Secondly, it seems inevitable that some of the piles of wasted votes in safe tory seats will go to UKIP.
In short I suspect the tory lead required for a majority at the next election will not be much bigger than the lead they had at the last one. Getting that will still not be easy though.
Is there any evidence the Conservatives are moving to a more efficient vote distribution ? The marginal poll suggested not, they have made little progress in Scotland AFAICS and the economy is really only buoyant in the south. So big majorities is Surrey ( or lots of seats held despite UKIP ). But their real hope can only be a less benevolent distribution of the labour vote. If UKIP are taking votes from all as they claim and attracting more Labour voters now, oddly they could help the Tories in some seats in the Midlands and North.
Current indications are that the Tories may well get 4 seats in Scotland thanks to the collapse of the Lib Dems. I may get giddy if that occurs.
Cameron was making the point today that Yorkshire and Humberside had done best out of London creating private sector jobs. The boom looks loudest in the property appreciating south but it is spreading wider and deeper than that. Hopefully that will be even more the case by 2015.
I think UKIP will undoubtedly gain a lot more votes but probably no seats. I am not aware of polling in the safe seats (why would anyone bother) but it seems entirely likely that the Mr Grumpy's of this world will be more tempted to indulge themselves where it is not going to make a difference.
But you are right that Labour gaining more votes where it does them little good is likely to be the biggest single factor.
I call this bollocks. If there is a booming economy by 2015, it is entirely possible Labour will lose 5-6% of their polling support, as voters shy away from giving the economy back to Balls and Miliband to f*ck up all over again.
These Labour quitters might not necessarily vote Tory, they could go LD, or abstain, but if Labour loses them - game on.
Of course the electoral maths is much harder for the Tories, but we knew that.
A booming economy might not be as good for the Tories as you think. The type that vote Labour will probably think that the economy has been fixed and it's time for Labour to start chucking money their way again. That is in addition to the magic money tree types that expect more money come hell or high water.
Also when some people are actually doing well for themselves it will encourage accusations of "greed" from those that aren't.
If a 'booming economy' is good for Lab that really puts the Tories in a tight spot.
Think about who votes Labour in general, it's made up mostly of those that either benefit from public spending and the economically illiterate. With a booming economy the first will group will want more money and then second will think it is safe to vote Labour again.
The fine state of the economy was one of the reasons for the 1997 Labour landslide.
I always enjoy the hatred and contempt some of the right-wing posters on here express for many millions of their fellow Britons.
Good afternoon colleagues and PB lefties, I gather another of my tips that Sir Ming would hang up his running shoes has been confirmed. Should be an interesting opportunity for the Tory candidate at #GE2015 who according to Baxter is presently predicted to win the seat.
Wonder how many more of the sitting Scottish MPs I have indicated to some PBers are likely to retire will do so.
The challengers to the LD's in 2015 will be SNP not the Conservatives . 2012 council results for the wards making up the parliamentary seat were roughly LD 8,300 SNP 6,200 Con 4,200 Lab 3,500 plus an Independent in Cupar who took 1,556 votes . His 2nd preferences split roughly 2:1:1:1 in favour of the LD's
Thank you Mark. And I note that Rod Crosby concurs with you.
The reason that the SNP are more realistic challengers to the Lib Dems in Fife North East is purely down to practicalities: the SNP are total experts at the "ground war" stuff. We have the money, we have the expertise, we have the large, motivated membership numbers, we have the databases, and we have the solid base of electoral support. The Tories have only got one or two of those things. The poor old Lib Dems have perhaps one of them.
And yet the poor old Lib Dems out polled SNP in the 2012 elections and substantially out polled the Conservatives .
What is your prediction for the Dunfermline by-election in a fortnight Mark? Will the Lib Dems manage to hold on to 3rd place? It would be pretty astonishing if you did not, considering that the Tories were 12.6 points behind you last time out.
Not looked too deeply into Dunfermline yet but I would expect easy Labour gain and LD's 3rd . Two Scottish by elections today , I expect LD gain in Borders and possibly narrow Labour gain from SNP in Glasgow .
Thanks.
If Mark Senior, of all people, is already conceding a 3rd place result for the Lib Dems in Dunfermline then I think we can safely say that the bookies' current 33/1 is miles too short.
With Royal Mail shares so oversubscribed why is the Govt not selling all 100%?
Why retain approx 30% to 40%?
Well, they'd have to sell them at 330p and the indication seems to be that the market will bear a higher price later. If anything, they ought to keep some back given the over-subscription.
THE SECOND PREDICTION OF A SCOTTISH TORY SURGE IN 2015
I'm sure the Unionists will be suffused with gratitude to David Cameron for calling Eck's bluff, and will duly reward the Conservatives with double-digit seats.
Well, they'd have to sell them at 330p and the indication seems to be that the market will bear a higher price later. If anything, they ought to keep some back given the over-subscription.
OK, thanks - fair point.
Is the Govt going to sell the rest over the next few months?
Seems like obvious move to help reduce deficit (albeit amount is relatively small).
THE SECOND PREDICTION OF A SCOTTISH TORY SURGE IN 2015
I'm sure the Unionists will be suffused with gratitude to David Cameron for calling Eck's bluff, and will duly reward the Conservatives with double-digit seats.
I can see a nailed on landslide - perhaps even a blue jock majority ?
Well better hung for a sheep than a lamb as Michael Moore might say. I think he is an obvious target and Sir Robert Smith in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is another good prospect. Argyll & Bute and NE Fife (minus Sir Ming) are less good chances.
Well, they'd have to sell them at 330p and the indication seems to be that the market will bear a higher price later. If anything, they ought to keep some back given the over-subscription.
OK, thanks - fair point.
Is the Govt going to sell the rest over the next few months?
Seems like obvious move to help reduce deficit (albeit amount is relatively small).
Given that the expected dividends on the share exceed the Government's rate for borrowing, wouldn't selling them increase the deficit (as opposed to net debt)?
One thing I dont understand about this tories cant win just look at the polls stuff, is the faith in the fact that the polls will not change before the GE. At the last Scottish Election the SNP were often 10 points behind labour just a few months before the election yet they won the election easily. OGH also made a lot of money betting on this outcome. Why is it being dismissed out of hand as a possibility of happening in May 2015 when we might well have experienced strong economic growth for 2 years. What will Labour campaign on, "let us back in so we can spend all the money again" or "vote for us we are not tories" The debates against this backdrop will be a real struggle for Ed as what can he say? He should have left the price freeze until the manifesto as at least then he could have something to campaign on. Perhaps he will put a price freeze on food, rents etc in the hope of gaining popularity that way!
"Much of the party's recent surge then is likely based on both Mr Farage's successful positioning of UKIP as 'anti-establishment' and also tapping into voters' views on immigration. It has not become popular because electors want out of the EU......
.......UKIP is vulnerable on the Europe issue where many of its voters take a much less stringent line than do its activists. By promising a referendum on the EU preceded by a renegotiation of the terms and conditions of UK membership the Conservatives are well-placed to appeal to UKIP voters that also subscribe to its views on tax and spend."
@tim - this letter does not matter - its the next one that will be interesting, as the difference between 'critical comment' and 'smear' may be subjective....
James Chapman (Mail)@jameschappers1m Everyone who applied gets £750 worth of Royal Mail shares. Big investors who went for £10k+ get nothing. Smart politics
That's it - Vince has lost my vote forever!! He's stuffed me.
Fortunately I took a diversified approach to lot sizes and other parts of the scrapheap empire should be more successful.
I don't think Labour on 31% is as far-fetched as all that. The party could lose a considerable amount of support to UKIP in certain parts of the country like Yorkshire & Humberside for example.
"All members of the public who have applied for shares in Royal Mail through the Retail Offer, up to and including applications of £10,000, will receive an allocation of 227 Shares which is equivalent to £749.10 at the Offer Price.
This represents almost 95 per cent. of all members of the public who have applied – or over 690,000 people.
Those who have applied for shares worth more than £10,000 will not receive an allocation, which is in line with the treatment of larger applications in previous well over-subscribed privatisations.
– All members of the public who submitted a valid application for £750 worth of shares – more than 93,000 people – will have their application met in full.
– In total over 270,000 applicants, (37 per cent. of applicants) will receive at least half of the Shares they have applied for.
– Only approximately 5 per cent. of applicants will receive no allocation.
All members of the public who have applied for shares in Royal Mail through the Retail Offer, up to and including applications of £10,000, will receive an allocation of 227 Shares which is equivalent to £749.10 at the Offer Price. This represents almost 95 per cent. of all members of the public who have applied – or over 690,000 people. Those who have applied for shares worth more than £10,000 will not receive an allocation, which is in line with the treatment of larger applications in previous well over-subscribed privatisations.
I think UKIP have two alternative strategies at the next election:
A: Try to win up to 10 seats. B: Try to get up to 20% of the national share.
The interesting thing IMO is that option A would have more short-term impact but B would have longer-term consequences, and therefore I think B would be the best choice.
Thanks for this - so everyone under £10k, get a flat paltry 227 shares. That's it.
What a waste of effort that was! Expensive shareholder register too to administer, they'll be hoping the public do sell out en masse and pocket circa £50....
The institutional tranche of the Offer was more than 20 times subscribed and the Retail Offer was approximately 7 times subscribed. 67 per cent. of the Base Offer has been allocated to institutional investors and 33 per cent. of it has been allocated under the Retail Offer.
Those ratios pretty much guarantee a short-term price blip.
Might as well take profits. It's hardly worth hanging on to £750 worth.
Employees do very well, though. Good for them.
[This is not financial advice, do your own research etc etc]
they'll be hoping the public do sell out en masse and pocket circa £50....
Depends on who 'they' are. Royal Mail, almost certainly, the govt, with 690,000 households to scare with 'Labour expropriation of the Royal Mail shares' stories on the other hand.....
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
they'll be hoping the public do sell out en masse and pocket circa £50....
Depends on who 'they' are. Royal Mail, almost certainly, the govt, with 690,000 households to scare with 'Labour expropriation of the Royal Mail shares' stories on the other hand.....
they'll be hoping the public do sell out en masse and pocket circa £50....
Depends on who 'they' are. Royal Mail, almost certainly, the govt, with 690,000 households to scare with 'Labour expropriation of the Royal Mail shares' stories on the other hand.....
Absolutely right - at this allocation many may say might as well hold it for the income rather than the faff or trying to trade it.... as a mass of shareholders - including loads of new 'sids' who went for shares for the first time ever - that can only be some positive for HMG albeit not a significant one, every little helps tho.
Royal Mail however will be desperate to lose them.. I predict a 'free' shareselling service being offered within 12 months by the company's registrar!!
I was going to apply for some shares yesterday, but forgot
Just as well, the offer closed on Tuesday!
At least I didn't apply for 11 grand's worth - Not that I have the cash to do so anyway. £10-100k investors must be sick as dogs.
Not really - at that level of allocation, it's a waste of time. My broker's website has now crashed as presume fellow rejects now clamouring for our money back before the weekend! Time to wedge up on Betfair's Tory nailed on Maj perhaps.....
Not really - at that level of allocation, it's a waste of time. My broker's website has now crashed as presume fellow rejects now clamouring for our money back before the weekend! Time to wedge up on Betfair's Tory nailed on Maj perhaps.....
The story will be about the hedge funds making a killing at the expense of taxpayers & small investors. That ain't going to help Tory Maj chances (although in fairness, I doubt it will even be remembered by 2015).
for those of us with any back-office experience of settling trades, I predict the mother of all nightmares in reconciling failed trades.... there's potentially over 500,000 shapes of 227 shares which could be traded and settled.... the regulator will need to monitor broker's client account reconciliations for nominee accounts and those allowing trading on physical certs being sent in closely I'd have thought.
My reservation about keeping the Royal Mail shares is that this is the most strike prone organisation in the country. In fact I would not be surprised if ultimately the imposition of private sector management will result in a measurable decrease in the number of strike days lost in the country on an annual basis.
There will be an improvement over time but it will be a bumpy ride.
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
Not really - at that level of allocation, it's a waste of time. My broker's website has now crashed as presume fellow rejects now clamouring for our money back before the weekend! Time to wedge up on Betfair's Tory nailed on Maj perhaps.....
The story will be about the hedge funds making a killing at the expense of taxpayers & small investors. That ain't going to help Tory Maj chances (although in fairness, I doubt it will even be remembered by 2015).
Wrong - they'll be allocated to mainly pension and investment houses across the syndicate I imagine - and 'flipping' as its called is monitored by the ECM area of the investment bank as that builds a history on who to allocate in floats/secondaries.
Hedge funds will be squeezed for sure but not entirely as some people do need to sell shares as otherwise, guess what, there's no market and it won't always be hedgies flipping anyway, could be some institutional fund manager seeking a quick return for his fund and to boost his fund performance.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
That certainly was miles from my experience when I lived in France. To do the simplest thing required an identity document and something called a 'Livret de Famille', which has no equivalent in the UK. Luckily an excellent lady at the British Council forged one for me (she just photocopied my passport, covered it in official-looking stamps, and told me to to tell the bureaucrats that that was a UK livret de famille).
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
How much do you estimate it will cost the NHS to check the legal status of every foreign-looking person?
How much does it cost the NHS (us) to provide health care to those not entitled to it? Perhaps we can take tips from those health services in the Netherlands, Italy, France, Germany etc who do what is being proposed here.
As an employer I have to check the legal status of anyone I employ. Why shouldn't the NHS do the same when taking on a patient? (Emergency treatment is I understand excluded).
So I'm gonna get £750 worth of shares. PFFFT. And I'll make about £50 profit. Amazing.
I can earn €60,000 in a fecking morning. WHY ARE THEY WASTING MY TIME WITH THIS CRAP.
If you're gonna sell off a precious national institution at a knockdown price - the golden rule is: make sure you do it in a way that massively benefits the already wealthy. It's not bloody rocket science.
Wankers.
May I associate myself with my literary friend's remarks. Hear! Hear! Meh....
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
In Spain, France and Portugal as a minimum you need passport and proof of address for bank account. For doctors , etc you need proof of residence or EHIC card as a minimum.
When I employ someone I don't need them to give me an ID card. I just need them to provide relevant evidence that they are entitled to reside and work in the UK. There is a range of material which is sufficient for this purpose and plenty of firms which assist employers with this.
Your approach seems to be to do nothing about illegal immigration because it might involve some work and/or cost, ignoring the costs of doing nothing, let alone the lessons this sends to law breakers and to those who pay for these services and feel that they should not be abused by those who are not entitled to them.
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
Try living in Italy. Also try doing it as a national of a non-EU country. I think you find you will be asked for quite a lot of information.
It's not a matter of being suspicious but of taking sensible steps to ensure that services paid for by residents of a country are not provided to those who are not entitled to them. Why do you (and, apparently, Tim) have such a difficulty with this simple concept?
Opening a new bank account sometimes goes into the too difficult file given the money laundering regulations that this country imposess with particular vigour. The idea that this is a new requirement is absurd. What is probably new is that rather than recording this information you will have a duty to do something with it.
I had to go through some rigmarole to activate a cheap mobile phone that I bought in France seven years ago.
It was embarrassing when my mind went blank and I forgot my address, but the bloke in the shop got it sorted by making out I lived in the H&M clothes store across the road.
I call this bollocks. If there is a booming economy by 2015, it is entirely possible Labour will lose 5-6% of their polling support, as voters shy away from giving the economy back to Balls and Miliband to f*ck up all over again.
These Labour quitters might not necessarily vote Tory, they could go LD, or abstain, but if Labour loses them - game on.
Of course the electoral maths is much harder for the Tories, but we knew that.
A booming economy might not be as good for the Tories as you think. The type that vote Labour will probably think that the economy has been fixed and it's time for Labour to start chucking money their way again. That is in addition to the magic money tree types that expect more money come hell or high water.
Also when some people are actually doing well for themselves it will encourage accusations of "greed" from those that aren't.
If a 'booming economy' is good for Lab that really puts the Tories in a tight spot.
Think about who votes Labour in general, it's made up mostly of those that either benefit from public spending and the economically illiterate. With a booming economy the first will group will want more money and then second will think it is safe to vote Labour again.
The fine state of the economy was one of the reasons for the 1997 Labour landslide.
I always enjoy the hatred and contempt some of the right-wing posters on here express for many millions of their fellow Britons.
It's hardly a massive mental leap to proclaim Labour supporters innumerate when less than a quarter of their MPs can answer a simple maths question:
Who can also forget Geoff Hoon admitting that decade long Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown was "someone frankly, not that interested in matters of money".
If this is what the leading lights of the Labour Party are like then what does it say about those who vote for them?
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
Try living in Italy. Also try doing it as a national of a non-EU country. I think you find you will be asked for quite a lot of information.
It's not a matter of being suspicious but of taking sensible steps to ensure that services paid for by residents of a country are not provided to those who are not entitled to them. Why do you (and, apparently, Tim) have such a difficulty with this simple concept?
You have no idea how much the problem costs you are trying to solve then
OK let's move on, who should carry ID and what form should it take?
Look up the employment regulations and you will see exactly what form of proof is needed.
Did the sovereign wealth funds of Kuwait and Singapore get their allocation?
Definitive answer 'no'.
They will have got 'an' allocation I imagine if they submitted orders, but they will 100% not have got their 'full' allocation - I'll guarantee you that.
I was around doing IPOs during the dotcom period and even the 'biggest' names/firms were only given fractions of their orders during those years in the "hot" issues as compliance classed them. I always preferred those deemed cold issues, much less volumes to handle but by god you wanted those trades settled asap as the market price was likely below the IPO price!!!
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
Try living in Italy. Also try doing it as a national of a non-EU country. I think you find you will be asked for quite a lot of information.
It's not a matter of being suspicious but of taking sensible steps to ensure that services paid for by residents of a country are not provided to those who are not entitled to them. Why do you (and, apparently, Tim) have such a difficulty with this simple concept?
Mrs J apparently had a fair few hassles at first here in the UK. She was fortunate in working for a large firm when she came over, where a few well-placed phone calls oiled the wheels with the worst of the bureaucracy. And the fact she speaks excellent English also helped.
I am fairly concerned about the NHS bit of this. *If* it puts people off going to the doctors or using NHS services, then there is a chance that a) it will be unhealthy for them, and b) unhealthy for the rest of us, especially in (*) respect to infectious diseases such as TB.
(*) Can one of the PB grammar Nazis tell me whether that should be 'in respect to' or 'with respect to' ?
Re this Alex Massie comment - "It includes you because the next time you wish to open a bank account or rent a flat or register with a doctor you will have to prove that you are legally resident in this country."
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
You evidently think that the European authorities are more suspicious then is in fact the case. I've lived in four European countries, and opened bank accounts, rented flats and registered with doctors in three of them. I've NEVER been asked to prove legal residence for any of them.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
Try living in Italy. Also try doing it as a national of a non-EU country. I think you find you will be asked for quite a lot of information.
It's not a matter of being suspicious but of taking sensible steps to ensure that services paid for by residents of a country are not provided to those who are not entitled to them. Why do you (and, apparently, Tim) have such a difficulty with this simple concept?
You have no idea how much the problem costs you are trying to solve then
OK let's move on, who should carry ID and what form should it take?
Look up the employment regulations and you will see exactly what form of proof is needed.
So who has to carry it?
Of course you've already admitted that illegals will head straight to A&E where there's no check.
I've done no such thing.
Anyone applying for employment at my firm has to provide proof that they are entitled to work in the UK. We need to keep that proof in the relevant HR file. They don't need to "carry" anything.
I call this bollocks. If there is a booming economy by 2015, it is entirely possible Labour will lose 5-6% of their polling support, as voters shy away from giving the economy back to Balls and Miliband to f*ck up all over again.
These Labour quitters might not necessarily vote Tory, they could go LD, or abstain, but if Labour loses them - game on.
Of course the electoral maths is much harder for the Tories, but we knew that.
A booming economy might not be as good for the Tories as you think. The type that vote Labour will probably think that the economy has been fixed and it's time for Labour to start chucking money their way again. That is in addition to the magic money tree types that expect more money come hell or high water.
Also when some people are actually doing well for themselves it will encourage accusations of "greed" from those that aren't.
If a 'booming economy' is good for Lab that really puts the Tories in a tight spot.
Think about who votes Labour in general, it's made up mostly of those that either benefit from public spending and the economically illiterate. With a booming economy the first will group will want more money and then second will think it is safe to vote Labour again.
The fine state of the economy was one of the reasons for the 1997 Labour landslide.
I always enjoy the hatred and contempt some of the right-wing posters on here express for many millions of their fellow Britons.
It's hardly a massive mental leap to proclaim Labour supporters innumerate when less than a quarter of their MPs can answer a simple maths question:
Who can also forget Geoff Hoon admitting that decade long Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown was "someone frankly, not that interested in matters of money".
If this is what the leading lights of the Labour Party are like then what does it say about those who vote for them?
When I employ someone I don't need them to give me an ID card. I just need them to provide relevant evidence that they are entitled to reside and work in the UK.
You do realise that non-EU citizens proof of eligibility to work is now by ID card, don't you?
One thing I dont understand about this tories cant win just look at the polls stuff, is the faith in the fact that the polls will not change before the GE. At the last Scottish Election the SNP were often 10 points behind labour just a few months before the election yet they won the election easily.
That's not an unreasonable point to make. My position is not that the Tories surely cannot win just because of the polls as they are now , but because I don't think the factors are there which would allow there to be a big change in the polls by the time of the election, which is similar but quite the same as the above - I would acknowledge the possibility of the polls changing even if as things stand the Tories would suffer, I just don't think the national situation or the political situation will lend themselves to such change.
When I employ someone I don't need them to give me an ID card. I just need them to provide relevant evidence that they are entitled to reside and work in the UK.
You do realise that non-EU citizens proof of eligibility to work is now by ID card, don't you?
Your retort is not a contradiction to cyclefree's statement.
I cannot think of anything Ed M could do to make Labout poll a mere 31% or less in 2015. 5 years of austerity (or 5 years of being told we've been suffering austerity at the least) causing some number of floaters to drift back to Labour, Labour no longer being at a 13 year low ebb from being worn out for being in power for so long so fewer staying home, former LDs - even if the economy can really pick up (in a really significant way), getting 31% seems so easy, especially from a leader like Ed M who seems quite coldly calculating about avoiding the kinds of errors which could sink him
Comments
Meanwhile, Ipsos-MORI say more than ever people are "proud of the NHS" and 77% think it "one of the best health services in the world". The folk who want to persuade people to support rethinking and radically reforming it should give up and take up cribbage - they'll find it a more satisfying experience.
Basically you are saying that Labour can get into power if they can fool enough voters.
Depressing.
In short I suspect the tory lead required for a majority at the next election will not be much bigger than the lead they had at the last one. Getting that will still not be easy though.
http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/energy
I don't think the Cameroons will ditch their greenery.
"The Renewables Obligation is about to be phased out and replaced with a system that guarantees generation companies a minimum price - or "strike" price - for years to come."
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/435168/Osborne-must-go-to-war-on-green-taxes-to-cut-bills
And yes, it should have come out of general taxation.
If that is really true then its very interesting....
Royal Mail Closing Share Price Friday 11th Oct
13/2 350p or less
7/1 351 to 375p
9/2 376 to 400p
3/1 401 to 425p
7/2 426 to 450p
15/8 Over 450p
They're just responding the notion that they've pushed the price to/beyond its limit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9854571/Petrol-prices-impact-Four-in-10-drivers-cut-back-on-miles.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/petrol-sales-slump-five-month-low-2207700
Nick P,
you're right about the NHS. That's one thing the LDs should have dug in their heels on. Messing around with the HoL was a minor thing by comparison. Yes, it's full of doddering old fools but it doesn't directly affect anyone.
Yes, the NHS can be improved, but no one will ever trust the Tories to do it.
As someone who bought direct I am very much hoping that will cause a peak until at least Tuesday after which the price can do what it likes!
It's somewhat hypothetical, though. We can't yet know how voters will behave.
1) International obligations wrt climate change.
2) Existing contracts with providers such as wind and biomass.
3) It would make us more reliant on gas and oil from unstable regimes.
4) It assumes that green energy isn't cheaper than gas and oil after 2015. Some may be.
I think (phew) my slightly previous assertion, that those applying for >£10k of shares to get zero, will turn out to be true
Well that includes me, so that's great. I can't expect much sympathy, given that (a) I have the cash to spare, so am basically evil; and (b) I was hoping to turn a quick profit - though it should be noted that this isn't risk-free.
However, one might expect HMG to act with something akin to a modicum of integrity (e.g. giving all retail investors the minimum), especially as they're selling off much larger chunks to institutional investors.
Cameron was making the point today that Yorkshire and Humberside had done best out of London creating private sector jobs. The boom looks loudest in the property appreciating south but it is spreading wider and deeper than that. Hopefully that will be even more the case by 2015.
I think UKIP will undoubtedly gain a lot more votes but probably no seats. I am not aware of polling in the safe seats (why would anyone bother) but it seems entirely likely that the Mr Grumpy's of this world will be more tempted to indulge themselves where it is not going to make a difference.
But you are right that Labour gaining more votes where it does them little good is likely to be the biggest single factor.
Blimey, having made that statement, I'd get your tin hat on if I were you...
Why retain approx 30% to 40%?
If Mark Senior, of all people, is already conceding a 3rd place result for the Lib Dems in Dunfermline then I think we can safely say that the bookies' current 33/1 is miles too short.
https://www.facebook.com/RevoltontheRight
http://news.sky.com/story/1152065/tory-and-ukip-activists-not-that-divided
Perhaps the experts at NASA could fake 3 Scottish Tory gains?
Is the Govt going to sell the rest over the next few months?
Seems like obvious move to help reduce deficit (albeit amount is relatively small).
@nadhimzahawi writes to Ed Miliband about "what appears to be a rebranded smear unit" operating out of Labour HQ: pic.twitter.com/D3Z4MakaqS
Hodges:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100240869/labour-goes-on-the-attack-with-its-seal-team/
Oh errr
"Much of the party's recent surge then is likely based on both Mr Farage's successful positioning of UKIP as 'anti-establishment' and also tapping into voters' views on immigration. It has not become popular because electors want out of the EU......
.......UKIP is vulnerable on the Europe issue where many of its voters take a much less stringent line than do its activists. By promising a referendum on the EU preceded by a renegotiation of the terms and conditions of UK membership the Conservatives are well-placed to appeal to UKIP voters that also subscribe to its views on tax and spend."
Everyone who applied gets £750 worth of Royal Mail shares. Big investors who went for £10k+ get nothing. Smart politics
That's it - Vince has lost my vote forever!! He's stuffed me.
Fortunately I took a diversified approach to lot sizes and other parts of the scrapheap empire should be more successful.
http://forms.bis.gov.uk/royalmail/royal-mail-share-offer-announcement-of-offer-price/
http://i.imgur.com/ZpHeLWI.png
This represents almost 95 per cent. of all members of the public who have applied – or over 690,000 people.
Those who have applied for shares worth more than £10,000 will not receive an allocation, which is in line with the treatment of larger applications in previous well over-subscribed privatisations.
– All members of the public who submitted a valid application for £750 worth of shares – more than 93,000 people – will have their application met in full.
– In total over 270,000 applicants, (37 per cent. of applicants) will receive at least half of the Shares they have applied for.
– Only approximately 5 per cent. of applicants will receive no allocation.
All members of the public who have applied for shares in Royal Mail through the Retail Offer, up to and including applications of £10,000, will receive an allocation of 227 Shares which is equivalent to £749.10 at the Offer Price. This represents almost 95 per cent. of all members of the public who have applied – or over 690,000 people. Those who have applied for shares worth more than £10,000 will not receive an allocation, which is in line with the treatment of larger applications in previous well over-subscribed privatisations.
A: Try to win up to 10 seats.
B: Try to get up to 20% of the national share.
The interesting thing IMO is that option A would have more short-term impact but B would have longer-term consequences, and therefore I think B would be the best choice.
Thanks for this - so everyone under £10k, get a flat paltry 227 shares. That's it.
What a waste of effort that was! Expensive shareholder register too to administer, they'll be hoping the public do sell out en masse and pocket circa £50....
The institutional tranche of the Offer was more than 20 times subscribed and the Retail Offer was approximately 7 times subscribed. 67 per cent. of the Base Offer has been allocated to institutional investors and 33 per cent. of it has been allocated under the Retail Offer.
Those ratios pretty much guarantee a short-term price blip.
Might as well take profits. It's hardly worth hanging on to £750 worth.
Employees do very well, though. Good for them.
[This is not financial advice, do your own research etc etc]
What on earth does he think you have to do when opening a bank account now? Or when doing any of those things in any other European country? He makes it sound as if May was proposing the slaughter of the first-born not some measures designed (leaving aside the question of whether they will work) to ensure that those who have no entitlement to be in this country do not take unfair advantage of the services it provides.
Absolutely right - at this allocation many may say might as well hold it for the income rather than the faff or trying to trade it.... as a mass of shareholders - including loads of new 'sids' who went for shares for the first time ever - that can only be some positive for HMG albeit not a significant one, every little helps tho.
Royal Mail however will be desperate to lose them.. I predict a 'free' shareselling service being offered within 12 months by the company's registrar!!
Not really - at that level of allocation, it's a waste of time. My broker's website has now crashed as presume fellow rejects now clamouring for our money back before the weekend! Time to wedge up on Betfair's Tory nailed on Maj perhaps.....
There will be an improvement over time but it will be a bumpy ride.
Naturally if some reason arises to suspect that someone isn't a legal resident, the police reserve the right to investigate. But it's not the norm to require proof.
Hedge funds will be squeezed for sure but not entirely as some people do need to sell shares as otherwise, guess what, there's no market and it won't always be hedgies flipping anyway, could be some institutional fund manager seeking a quick return for his fund and to boost his fund performance.
Not difficult, is it.
As an employer I have to check the legal status of anyone I employ. Why shouldn't the NHS do the same when taking on a patient? (Emergency treatment is I understand excluded).
Your approach seems to be to do nothing about illegal immigration because it might involve some work and/or cost, ignoring the costs of doing nothing, let alone the lessons this sends to law breakers and to those who pay for these services and feel that they should not be abused by those who are not entitled to them.
It's not a matter of being suspicious but of taking sensible steps to ensure that services paid for by residents of a country are not provided to those who are not entitled to them. Why do you (and, apparently, Tim) have such a difficulty with this simple concept?
It was embarrassing when my mind went blank and I forgot my address, but the bloke in the shop got it sorted by making out I lived in the H&M clothes store across the road.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666
Who can also forget Geoff Hoon admitting that decade long Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown was "someone frankly, not that interested in matters of money".
If this is what the leading lights of the Labour Party are like then what does it say about those who vote for them?
They will have got 'an' allocation I imagine if they submitted orders, but they will 100% not have got their 'full' allocation - I'll guarantee you that.
I was around doing IPOs during the dotcom period and even the 'biggest' names/firms were only given fractions of their orders during those years in the "hot" issues as compliance classed them. I always preferred those deemed cold issues, much less volumes to handle but by god you wanted those trades settled asap as the market price was likely below the IPO price!!!
I am fairly concerned about the NHS bit of this. *If* it puts people off going to the doctors or using NHS services, then there is a chance that a) it will be unhealthy for them, and b) unhealthy for the rest of us, especially in (*) respect to infectious diseases such as TB.
(*) Can one of the PB grammar Nazis tell me whether that should be 'in respect to' or 'with respect to' ?
Anyone applying for employment at my firm has to provide proof that they are entitled to work in the UK. We need to keep that proof in the relevant HR file. They don't need to "carry" anything.