The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
In the UK you don't need a deed poll. You can call yourself what you like, as long as the intention is not to deceive or run away from your debts. You could probably have the car in the name "Cann" rather than "Khan" and the insurance similarly.
I'd like to see the Venn diagram of those worried about Admiral's apparent race-based pricing for insurance and those worried about the Labour party's apparent race-based pricing for its rally.
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
I’ve been driving for 22 years, my father for 45 years, I’m thinking of all the compensation we’re going to get now.
I’m hoping for a six figure payout for all the racist insurance policies.
The Leave poster stoking up fears of a surge of swarthy immigrants was a highly effective one, as was the £350 million for the NHS tagline on the bus and posters. While both were certainly mendacious, that is a commonplace in political campaigning. Of course there were mendacious claims by Remain also.
Were these posters the difference between 52/48 and 48/52? Quite possibly.
I wasn't here at the time the Turkey poster came out so have no idea of its impact. Was Leave behind at that stage?
But I suspect that its resonance (with some) was in part because of Germany's decision to let in a million migrants the previous year. It was not just the scale, nor the concern that some will have had at the influx of a large number of young males from deeply misogynist, patriarchal and violent societies (a concern which has to some extent proved to be justified - see the sexual attacks on women in Germany and Sweden, for instance) but also the fact that Germany took a unilateral decision which would nonetheless impact other EU countries, thus blowing a bloody great hole in the idea of European solidarity and rules etc. Cameron had been told in his renegotiation by the Germans that FoM was inviolable / nothing could be done to help him on the immigration issue - and then, when it suited Germany, the rules (on asylum, migration etc) could be torn up. Whatever the justification - given the facts on the ground - it will have looked to some as if the rules were something which Britain was expected to follow to the letter and which other (more important) countries could ignore. Not a great look when you are trying to win a referendum on remaining in a laws-based institution.
But it is certainly correct that, whatever the formal position, Turkey was not joining the EU in any practical sense in the near future at the time of the referendum.
It may change in future and join. I am a touch sceptical that something as deeply embedded as a religiously based culture can be changed simply because some laws have been enacted. A few civics classes don't change matters which are more central to people's identity than we might appreciate. But we will only be able to judge this in decades. Turkey seems to have turned its back, for now, on secular democracy and liberalisation. So the question of it joining the EU is moot.
They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.
There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.
The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.
Incorrect again.
Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.
Conceivably Fleetwood could qualify for the Europa League, by winning either the League Cup or the FA Cup, then the Champions League by winning the Europa League. I wouldn't bet on it though!
This is all semantics though, as Turkey meet only one of the EU Accession criteria, and are going backwards on the others. There is not a realistic chance of them meeting the other criteria in the forseeable future. Nonetheless I understand why the EU encourages Turkey in the direction of a secular democracy with the rule of law and an open economy, which is what accession status means.
To suggest that their accession was either imminent or would not have migration controls associated was mendacious by the Leave campaign. Not the only example of this by either side, and probably quite successful at motivating the base.
Yes it would have taken years. But then so would many things we were discussing.
The Treasuries projections were based on estimates for 2030. Turkey could well have been in the EU by 2030.
The Leave poster stoking up fears of a surge of swarthy immigrants was a highly effective one, as was the £350 million for the NHS tagline on the bus and posters. While both were certainly mendacious, that is a commonplace in political campaigning. Of course there were mendacious claims by Remain also.
Were these posters the difference between 52/48 and 48/52? Quite possibly.
One could equally claim that the punishment budget and the Government off the book leafleting to every house on the country on behalf of Remain was the difference between 52/48 and 56/44. The Turkey poster was dumb and dishonest. The £350 million a week was only stupid because the real figure of £288 million a week was equally horrifying but with the benefit of being accurate.
They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.
There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.
The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.
Incorrect again.
Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.
Dear f*cking god this is painful.
Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.
Voila!
Comparable to Russia.
Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.
Voila!
You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.
So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.
Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.
No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.
"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.
Nah.
I am getting the train if I am stepping up from the platform onto the train.
I am in the process of getting the train if I am stuck on the A1(M) at the Black Cat heading to Peterborough Station to get the train with 20 minutes before it leaves.
The thinnest argument ever advanced on PB, or probably anywhere. I don't know why the flounceteers put so much weight on the alleged falsity of the Turkey joining claim, anyway. If it is a xenophobic, racebaiting, blah blah disgrace, it is pretty much equally that whether it is true or false, I would have thought.
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
In the UK you don't need a deed poll. You can call yourself what you like, as long as the intention is not to deceive or run away from your debts. You could probably have the car in the name "Cann" rather than "Khan" and the insurance similarly.
Insurance companies void policies/claims for minor things, I reckon they’d void it for the Cann/Khan thing.
Plus you’re likely to get a CIFAS marker for that too.
They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.
There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.
The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.
Incorrect again.
Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.
Dear f*cking god this is painful.
Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.
Voila!
Comparable to Russia.
Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.
Voila!
You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.
So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.
Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.
No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.
"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.
Not really, if that process has stalled to the point of being dead - in politics, particularly international politics I would guess, things can be dead for a long time before people admit it and move on, for all sorts of reasons, so it is very possible to give a very misleading impression of the status of that issue, it doesn't seem to be a crazy distinction to put some qualifiers on likelihood, particularly when imminence, or potential imminence, raises the stakes considerably.
Mr. Meeks, it depends on whether race/name has an impact on risky behaviour as to whether it's legitimate to change prices based on that factor. The difference appears very significant, however.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
In the UK you don't need a deed poll. You can call yourself what you like, as long as the intention is not to deceive or run away from your debts. You could probably have the car in the name "Cann" rather than "Khan" and the insurance similarly.
Insurance companies void policies/claims for minor things, I reckon they’d void it for the Cann/Khan thing.
Plus you’re likely to get a CIFAS marker for that too.
I don't recall ever having to give the name on my birth certificate.
Most people would want to avoid this, because you might have to explain to the police that you do have the benefit of insurance even when your licence shows a different name to your policy.
Mr. Meeks, it depends on whether race/name has an impact on risky behaviour as to whether it's legitimate to change prices based on that factor. The difference appears very significant, however.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
I saw someone on twitter say their quote was cheaper if they changed their surname from Cohen to something less Jewish.
The thinnest argument ever advanced on PB, or probably anywhere. I don't know why the flounceteers put so much weight on the alleged falsity of the Turkey joining claim, anyway. If it is a xenophobic, racebaiting, blah blah disgrace, it is pretty much equally that whether it is true or false, I would have thought.
Michael Gove said that Turkish membership "will inevitably happen in our lifetimes unless we vote Leave on June 23rd". If you're looking for thin arguments, saying we should leave the EU in order to stop Turkey joining has to be up there.
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
In the UK you don't need a deed poll. You can call yourself what you like, as long as the intention is not to deceive or run away from your debts. You could probably have the car in the name "Cann" rather than "Khan" and the insurance similarly.
Insurance companies void policies/claims for minor things, I reckon they’d void it for the Cann/Khan thing.
Plus you’re likely to get a CIFAS marker for that too.
I don't recall ever having to give the name on my birth certificate.
Most people would want to avoid this, because you might have to explain to the police that you do have the benefit of insurance even when your licence shows a different name to your policy.
You can get away with things like James/Jimmy/Jim or William/Will/Bill/Billy but not a surname change.
If you’re paying it over 12 months you’re signing a credit agreement and creating a false footprint.
They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.
The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.
Voila!
Comparable to Russia.
Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.
Voila!
You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.
So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.
Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.
No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.
"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.
Nah.
I am getting the train if I am stepping up from the platform onto the train.
I am in the process of getting the train if I am stuck on the A1(M) at the Black Cat heading to Peterborough Station to get the train with 20 minutes before it leaves.
The thinnest argument ever advanced on PB, or probably anywhere. I don't know why the flounceteers put so much weight on the alleged falsity of the Turkey joining claim, anyway. If it is a xenophobic, racebaiting, blah blah disgrace, it is pretty much equally that whether it is true or false, I would have thought.
This seems a wholly pointless argument. Turkey was made a half promise that one day it might join, for reasons that suited both the EU and Turkey at the time, but the EU (and probably Turkey) were savvy enough to know it wasn't going to happen for decades, if ever. For reasons disreputable it suited the Leave campaign to make out that a half promise was a whole one to whip up support for the referendum. It's a whole episode out from which no-one emerges with much credit.
As for the grammar, it's the other way around: "am getting" could be a statement of future intent, expressed from the comfort of an armchair, whereas "in the process of getting" means you are actually doing it, or at least have started to go about doing it.
Do people think that today’s headlines are good for Boris or not? On one hand, he’s saying what a lot of people want but also being ‘slapped down’ by your colleagues is never a good look...
They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.
There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.
The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.
Incorrect again.
Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.
Conceivably Fleetwood could qualify for the Europa League, by winning either the League Cup or the FA Cup, then the Champions League by winning the Europa League. I wouldn't bet on it though!
This is all semantics .
Yes it would have taken years. But then so would many things we were discussing.
The Treasuries projections were based on estimates for 2030. Turkey could well have been in the EU by 2030.
The Leave poster stoking up fears of a surge of swarthy immigrants was a highly effective one, as was the £350 million for the NHS tagline on the bus and posters. While both were certainly mendacious, that is a commonplace in political campaigning. Of course there were mendacious claims by Remain also.
Were these posters the difference between 52/48 and 48/52? Quite possibly.
One could equally claim that the punishment budget and the Government off the book leafleting to every house on the country on behalf of Remain was the difference between 52/48 and 56/44. The Turkey poster was dumb and dishonest. The £350 million a week was only stupid because the real figure of £288 million a week was equally horrifying but with the benefit of being accurate.
I am quite happy to concede that both campaigns centered on mendacious and exaggerated claims. It was profoundly depressing and I criticised Remain at the time for it. Tories were running both, so that perhaps contributed.
Such hyperbole does occur in regular campaigns (24 hours to save the NHS/£ etc) the difference is that elections are for a term, so it holds back the more extreme claims. Referendums are more rare, so anything goes, and did. Not an edifying face of the country shown on either side, and not a rift that I expect to see healed in my lifetime.
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
In the UK you don't need a deed poll. You can call yourself what you like, as long as the intention is not to deceive or run away from your debts. You could probably have the car in the name "Cann" rather than "Khan" and the insurance similarly.
Insurance companies void policies/claims for minor things, I reckon they’d void it for the Cann/Khan thing.
Plus you’re likely to get a CIFAS marker for that too.
I don't recall ever having to give the name on my birth certificate.
Most people would want to avoid this, because you might have to explain to the police that you do have the benefit of insurance even when your licence shows a different name to your policy.
You can get away with things like James/Jimmy/Jim or William/Will/Bill/Billy but not a surname change.
If you’re paying it over 12 months you’re signing a credit agreement and creating a false footprint.
If I were at home I'd be tempted to get my T&Cs out for (a) the insurance and (b) the credit agreement, although we can probably drop (b) for sake of argument.
Do people think that today’s headlines are good for Boris or not? On one hand, he’s saying what a lot of people want but also being ‘slapped down’ by your colleagues is never a good look...
It is the blatant/so transparent aspect that is so damaging for Boris.
“Leeds and Bradford remain among the nation’s hotspots for the offence, according to Aviva, whose analysis revealed more than 3,000 organised crash for cash claimants last year - the equivalent of one every three hours.
One in every four of these claims happened in Birmingham, though Coventry, Oldham, Luton and parts of London have also seen large numbers of complaints.”
“Leeds and Bradford remain among the nation’s hotspots for the offence, according to Aviva, whose analysis revealed more than 3,000 organised crash for cash claimants last year - the equivalent of one every three hours.
One in every four of these claims happened in Birmingham, though Coventry, Oldham, Luton and parts of London have also seen large numbers of complaints.”
Draw your own conclusions.
So give different quotes based on where you live/drive then... simples (as they say)
What dividend? A booming stockmarket, more growth in manufacturing over the past 18 months than in the previous 16 years, a big rise in exports, a big improvement in the public finances, more jobs.
This is the reason why: big uptick in the world economy. The UK is only major economy expected to grow less in 2017 than 2016, apart from Spain which has double our growth rates. TBF if you are going to Brexit, it's best to do it in benign circumstances, which won't last unfortunately:
After all the revisions are done, I expect that growth for 2017 will at least match that for 2016. But based much more on production than on consumption.
Nevertheless there are convincing counterfactuals (previously expected UK growth rates, previous UK actual growth rates and actual growth rates of peer countries) to suggest a Brexit drag on the economy of about 0.5 percentage points per year. 2017 should have seen a growth rate of about 2.2%. The question is whether that drag will continue. If it's just a couple of years we won't notice it; if it accumulates over a decade or so we will see ourselves noticeably poorer than our peers. We won't be a failed state, but it will be a bit miserable. The Italy situation basically.
Let's not rule out 2.2% until all the revisions are in.
Can I just say that my initial forecast in January 2017 was 2.2 for the year. What seems to have blown that off course was Q1. At the moment we are to believe that after a stonking Q4 of 2016 (even more so after recent revisions) the economy fell off a cliff to growth of 0.3%. I very much doubt that and suspect this will be revised away in due course.
Out of interest did quote for the Muslim name first? In theory I could see the second application discriminated against.
I did the Muslim name first.
How far are an insurance company’s actuarial tables allowed to compete with various discrimination laws? I recall a row a few years ago about insurance companies not being allowed to discriminate by gender. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-12608777
They have begun the process by being a part of the Football League.
There are many and various hurdles for Fleetwood Town to win it, but they are part of the system and process whereby they can win it.
The Peterbrough Phantoms, meanwhile (Go Phantoms!), are not part of that process.
Incorrect again.
Members of the Football League don't qualify for the Champions League, member of the Premier League can. The Premier League is not a part of the Football League, the top tier of the Football League is called the Championship.
Dear f*cking god this is painful.
Fleetwood Town get promoted to the Championship and then they get promoted to the Premier League and then they qualify for the Champions League and then they win it.
Voila!
Comparable to Russia.
Russia get accepted as an Accession nation and then the complete the Accession process and then they qualify for EU membership and then they join.
Voila!
You have forgotten what you are trying to prove. Turkey was in the process of joining the EU. But that process involved (as @John_M has acutely observed) adhering to criteria that would have taken/will take Turkey years and years. And that's aside from any vetoes.
So they were in the process of joining but were not joining.
Are these ideas too complex for you? I don't mean to be insulting but it is not too difficult a concept to get your head around.
No I think you're making a ridiculously absurd distinction to expect make in political discourse.
"in the process of joining" is equivalent to "joining". We use short and simple sentences in political headlines. As far as political discourse goes, "joining" and "in the process of joining" are very close synonyms.
Nah.
I am getting the train if I am stepping up from the platform onto the train.
I am in the process of getting the train if I am stuck on the A1(M) at the Black Cat heading to Peterborough Station to get the train with 20 minutes before it leaves.
And if I call your house to see if you're available today and your wife says no he's getting the train then I wouldn't call her a liar when it subsequently turns out you were actually on the A1 heading to the trainstation.
Do people think that today’s headlines are good for Boris or not? On one hand, he’s saying what a lot of people want but also being ‘slapped down’ by your colleagues is never a good look...
I believe Johnson is consciously modelling on Trump. He sees that disruptive model working for Trump and thinks he can do something similar.
My secretary is ethnically european, but has an Asian surname. Often when she uses her married name she finds tradesmen unwilling to quote for work, but never has a problem with her maiden name.
As a general principle, it seems reasonable for insurance models to discriminate by things you can control (credit history, past accidents) but not by things you can’t (gender, race, surname)
Pleased to see The Shape of Water getting so many noms at the Oscars. Also really pleasantly surprised at Phantom Thread getting so many. Probably the film that stayed with me most after watching. It is wonderfully strange, and Daniel Day-Lewis must be really spitting tacks that Gary Oldman's Churchill portrayal came out this year.
Biggest snub (for me) is Denis Villeneuve not getting a director nod for Bladerunner 2049. He really deserved one.
Boris Johnson and Gavin Williamson have made their leadership intentions known today (not that they were hidden beforehand). But don't overlook Michael Gove:
"Environment secretary Mr Gove was notably restrained in his support for Mr Johnson on Tuesday. He is said by friends to still have his own eyes on the top job. “I don’t think he’s plotting, but I think he’s certainly making sure that he doesn’t undermine any opportunity that arises,” he said of the foreign secretary.
Mr Gove has repaired relations with Mr Johnson since the bruising leadership contest in the aftermath of the EU referendum, but is maintaining a distance. “He’s certainly not Boris’s guy now,” said one Gove ally."
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
As a general principle, it seems reasonable for insurance models to discriminate by things you can control (credit history, past accidents) but not by things you can’t (gender, race, surname)
As a general principle it does, but the issue is then attempts to continuously expand the ‘things you can’t control’ sphere.
Perhaps one day the Left will call for equal pricing, as every other distinction amounts to a form of discrimination.
Admiral emailed my son earlier today regarding this story...
"You may have seen a story in the news which claims we use customers' names to price our insurance based on race. This is 100% not the case and we do not, and have never, used this information to provide a price to our customers. I'm sorry if this story has caused you any concerns.
To offer our prices we use a complex rating structure and rate on many different variables and data sources. The journalists have misunderstood our pricing structure and the insurance quotes in the story are not like for like.
This email is to offer you an explanation of the press story and to offer my apologies for any concern caused. There is no need for you to take any action."
Do people think that today’s headlines are good for Boris or not? On one hand, he’s saying what a lot of people want but also being ‘slapped down’ by your colleagues is never a good look...
I believe Johnson is consciously modelling on Trump. He sees that disruptive model working for Trump and thinks he can do something similar.
Since he is inescapably disruptive I guess that it is his only hope...?
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
Less anything we agree to pay to stay a part of some parts of the club. But yes.
As a general principle, it seems reasonable for insurance models to discriminate by things you can control (credit history, past accidents) but not by things you can’t (gender, race, surname)
As a general principle it does, but the issue is then attempts to continuously expand the ‘things you can’t control’ sphere.
Perhaps one day the Left will call for equal pricing, as every other distinction amounts to a form of discrimination.
If women have fewer accidents per mile than men (which they do) then the insurance company would not be differentiating in favour of women on gender but on accidents of that group of people if they charge a lower premium.
However, it has been made illegal to take account ofthe fact that women have fewer accidents per mile in insurance premium quotes. An EU law I believe. Why this is not a subsidiarity issue that should be left to individual EU countries I don't know.
Jim Messina on News Channel. He thinks Cameron should have carried on after the referendum.
And the 2017 manifesto was a catastrophe.
They pay him the big bucks for that level of insight?
You can’t help feeling that the political parties could frequently get a better picture and many better ideas on here, if they could only bear to wade past the Brexit posts (mine included).
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
Gove has already said that farm subsidies will be the same amopunt but allocated more on environmental grounds and less to large scale industrial farming.
It is not just how much but the criteria for receiving it. The EU CAP is all about supporting small to medium uneconomic (French) farmers.
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
It's actually about £7bn net, including approximately £1 billion spent in the UK outside of government disbursement. The £7 billion includes solidarity payments to poorer EU countries as well as our share of common institutions and resources that would have to be replicated in the UK if we go it alone, and a small amount on central bureaucracy.
Jim Messina on News Channel. He thinks Cameron should have carried on after the referendum.
And the 2017 manifesto was a catastrophe.
They pay him the big bucks for that level of insight?
You can’t help feeling that the political parties could frequently get a better picture and many better ideas on here, if they could only bear to wade past the Brexit posts (mine included).
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
Less anything we agree to pay to stay a part of some parts of the club. But yes.
which, naturally, would come under "our priorities"
...he says, desperately trying to appear as if he had remembered that
Mr. Meeks, it depends on whether race/name has an impact on risky behaviour as to whether it's legitimate to change prices based on that factor. The difference appears very significant, however.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
Mr D - well done for causing upset to every Sikh in the world be saying that Singh is a Hindu name!
Mr. Meeks, it depends on whether race/name has an impact on risky behaviour as to whether it's legitimate to change prices based on that factor. The difference appears very significant, however.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
It is hard to check the past history of people with a very common name like Smith, Patel, Mohammed, especially when they have not lived at their current address for very long.
A name like Evershed can be easily checked to see if the same Evershed has made accident claims whilst living at a different address.
If you want a low quote, stay at the same address a long time and live in the country not the town. - oh and don't make accident claims.
Correct. Although there won't be any net savings until 2021 at the earliest, if the transition goes as planned. Even after that any net savings will be reduced by ongoing A50 payments. All these leave aside any economic effects of Brexit.
Who knows what the deal will look like afterwards, but from our gross contribution of £12-13bn, I'm sure £7-8bn will be available. As to the effects of Brexit on the economy, or at least government revenue, well this year the OBR are going to be ~£11bn out on their deficit forecast, mainly due to much stronger than expected tax receipts owing to stronger growth in production than expected.
I don't know about you, but if our fiscal ombudsman can be £11bn out in-year then I'm not going to even pretend that anyone can predict the effects of Brexit on the economy.
It could be that once we're out Liam Fox surprises everyone and we sign favourable trade deals with scores of countries and it adds more to our export growth than anyone expects. It could be that Sterling crashes to parity with the Euro forcing us to import more from non-EU countries with whom we may decide to cut or eliminate tariffs, further boosting growth.
There's so many scenarios with post Brexit economic growth that it would be folly to predict how it will effect the government's finances. I'll repeat, the OBR are going to be £11bn our with an in-year prediction. They have access to more data than any other organisations tying to predict UK economic development.
Anyway, I'm sure this will all fall on deaf ears and you will continue on your path of Brexit = doom, despite mounting evidence to the contrary and I'll continue to look at the actual numbers, mainly because I have to.
Do people think that today’s headlines are good for Boris or not? On one hand, he’s saying what a lot of people want but also being ‘slapped down’ by your colleagues is never a good look...
I believe Johnson is consciously modelling on Trump. He sees that disruptive model working for Trump and thinks he can do something similar.
Mr. Meeks, it depends on whether race/name has an impact on risky behaviour as to whether it's legitimate to change prices based on that factor. The difference appears very significant, however.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
Mr D - well done for causing upset to every Sikh in the world be saying that Singh is a Hindu name!
VP Singh was Indian PM briefly from 1989 to 1990. He was a Hindu.
Jim Messina on News Channel. He thinks Cameron should have carried on after the referendum.
And the 2017 manifesto was a catastrophe.
They pay him the big bucks for that level of insight?
You can’t help feeling that the political parties could frequently get a better picture and many better ideas on here, if they could only bear to wade past the Brexit posts (mine included).
The Brexit posts are the highlights.
Maybe to you Alastair. How many times have we argued about Turkish accession, the level of our net contributions, whether some poster long forgotten had racist undertones, the bus, the punishment budget, people of nowhere, why remainers should be in the huff until the end of time, why Leavers are all ignorant and deluded, why we are now alone in the world, why we will get Brexit in name only, who holds the cards for the negotiations etc etc.
Has anyone changed their mind about any of these things?
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
It's actually about £7bn net, including approximately £1 billion spent in the UK outside of government disbursement. The £7 billion includes solidarity payments to poorer EU countries as well as our share of common institutions and resources that would have to be replicated in the UK if we go it alone, and a small amount on central bureaucracy.
£8.5 billion net in 2015, which is £163 million a week.
Do people think that today’s headlines are good for Boris or not? On one hand, he’s saying what a lot of people want but also being ‘slapped down’ by your colleagues is never a good look...
Are REMAINERs really happy with so much money being sent to Brussels instead of being spent on our NHS?
OT. My favourite film by a distance and well worth an Oscar flutter 'Three Billboards.....' and if anyone feels like a double go for Frances McDormand as best actress or a treble with Irish Director writer Martin McDonagh
OT. My favourite film by a distance and well worth an Oscar flutter 'Three Billboards.....' and if anyone feels like a double go for Frances McDormand as best actress or a treble with Irish Director writer Martin McDonagh
Are you doing an Oscars thread this year? Must be harder to predict with all the Me too furore but it’s always a great read.
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
The same place it comes from now, the gross EU contribution.
OT. My favourite film by a distance and well worth an Oscar flutter 'Three Billboards.....' and if anyone feels like a double go for Frances McDormand as best actress or a treble with Irish Director writer Martin McDonagh
Roger what do you think to the films that Netflix are doing ? I see Mudbound has been nominated in some categories.
Peston wouldn’t know if it was was Tuesday or raining.
He would if he’d driven the M8 from Edinburgh to Glasgow this afternoon. Like a monsoon. Cars aqua planing and minimal visibility. Not often in my life I have been glad to see Glasgow but I was today.
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
Less anything we agree to pay to stay a part of some parts of the club. But yes.
In practice I doubt we will save anything from our EU membership fee after Brexit. We will continue to make payments to other European countries, not least because it buys us some influence. The rest is a wash.
Mr. Meeks, it depends on whether race/name has an impact on risky behaviour as to whether it's legitimate to change prices based on that factor. The difference appears very significant, however.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
Mr D - well done for causing upset to every Sikh in the world be saying that Singh is a Hindu name!
VP Singh was Indian PM briefly from 1989 to 1990. He was a Hindu.
While some Hindus are called Singh, all Sikh men are called Singh. And all Sikh women called Kaur.
“Leeds and Bradford remain among the nation’s hotspots for the offence, according to Aviva, whose analysis revealed more than 3,000 organised crash for cash claimants last year - the equivalent of one every three hours.
One in every four of these claims happened in Birmingham, though Coventry, Oldham, Luton and parts of London have also seen large numbers of complaints.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Following my experiences with Aviva, I would automatically assume those figures are fraudulent.
Even if they have not been delivery falsified, they will have been so badly put together as to be utterly meaningless.
Incidentally Tamworth, not Birmingham, is the place where I would be most on the alert for scammers.
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
Less anything we agree to pay to stay a part of some parts of the club. But yes.
In practice I doubt we will save anything from our EU membership fee after Brexit. We will continue to make payments to other European countries, not least because it buys us some influence. The rest is a wash.
We will save £5-7 bn in direct payments. The question will be whether that is offset by a general reduction of tax take if Brexit does slow the economy. As this will all be hypotheticals I can foresee an endless argument about it. I suspect we will never really know for sure. Hey ho. I can hardly wait.
Jim Messina on News Channel. He thinks Cameron should have carried on after the referendum.
And the 2017 manifesto was a catastrophe.
They pay him the big bucks for that level of insight?
You can’t help feeling that the political parties could frequently get a better picture and many better ideas on here, if they could only bear to wade past the Brexit posts (mine included).
The Brexit posts are the highlights.
Maybe to you Alastair. How many times have we argued about Turkish accession, the level of our net contributions, whether some poster long forgotten had racist undertones, the bus, the punishment budget, people of nowhere, why remainers should be in the huff until the end of time, why Leavers are all ignorant and deluded, why we are now alone in the world, why we will get Brexit in name only, who holds the cards for the negotiations etc etc.
Has anyone changed their mind about any of these things?
Jim Messina on News Channel. He thinks Cameron should have carried on after the referendum.
And the 2017 manifesto was a catastrophe.
They pay him the big bucks for that level of insight?
You can’t help feeling that the political parties could frequently get a better picture and many better ideas on here, if they could only bear to wade past the Brexit posts (mine included).
The Brexit posts are the highlights.
Maybe to you Alastair. How many times have we argued about Turkish accession, the level of our net contributions, whether some poster long forgotten had racist undertones, the bus, the punishment budget, people of nowhere, why remainers should be in the huff until the end of time, why Leavers are all ignorant and deluded, why we are now alone in the world, why we will get Brexit in name only, who holds the cards for the negotiations etc etc.
Has anyone changed their mind about any of these things?
Admiral emailed my son earlier today regarding this story...
"You may have seen a story in the news which claims we use customers' names to price our insurance based on race. This is 100% not the case and we do not, and have never, used this information to provide a price to our customers. I'm sorry if this story has caused you any concerns.
To offer our prices we use a complex rating structure and rate on many different variables and data sources. The journalists have misunderstood our pricing structure and the insurance quotes in the story are not like for like.
This email is to offer you an explanation of the press story and to offer my apologies for any concern caused. There is no need for you to take any action."
For all those of you who do not recycle how would you cope with our local council (Conwy) agreeing to move to four weekly bin collections. And yes, we have had annual 5% council tax increases for years
Interesting analysis of the UK's EU contributions - after the rebate they were £235 million per week- even the gross figure before rebate is only £325 million per week:
Suffice there's a lot less dividend to play with than many in the thread below believe.
Oh no, only £235mn a week. What a shame.
The net figure of the last few years per this research is a whopping £137 million per week - FWIW the UK Gov budget is £15 billion a week - we're in rounding error territory here.
That's £7bn per year in unmatched spending. Some EU funding only comes if the government guarantees to match it. Add a billion for that and we're up to £8bn. I think if you said to people, would you rather give the EU £8bn per year or the NHS £8bn per year the answer would be fairly emphatic.
Gove's already promised farmers £3 billion per annum until 2024 with a new scheme to replace the existing method after this date. I'm sure there are a number of other vested interests who will be banging on the government's door for compensation for loss of EU funds.
If the NHS needs another £8 billion now there's nothing stopping us allocating these funds now - no need to wait till 2022.
That £3bn will replace EU CAP spending and not come from the saving out of the net contribution.
Where will the govt the farmers promised £3 Billion come from then?
From the gross payment to the EU - it's a like for like replacement.
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
It's actually about £7bn net, including approximately £1 billion spent in the UK outside of government disbursement. The £7 billion includes solidarity payments to poorer EU countries as well as our share of common institutions and resources that would have to be replicated in the UK if we go it alone, and a small amount on central bureaucracy.
£8.5 billion net in 2015, which is £163 million a week.
The EU spends money directly in the UK, for example on scientific research or industrial policy. These are part of the gross net figure, so to speak.
For all those of you who do not recycle how would you cope with our local council (Conwy) agreeing to move to four weekly bin collections. And yes, we have had annual 5% council tax increases for years
I do recycle and I'd be pissed off with monthly bin collections. I wouldn't want rotting food and dirty nappies sat in my bin festering for a month.
Admiral emailed my son earlier today regarding this story...
"You may have seen a story in the news which claims we use customers' names to price our insurance based on race. This is 100% not the case and we do not, and have never, used this information to provide a price to our customers. I'm sorry if this story has caused you any concerns.
To offer our prices we use a complex rating structure and rate on many different variables and data sources. The journalists have misunderstood our pricing structure and the insurance quotes in the story are not like for like.
This email is to offer you an explanation of the press story and to offer my apologies for any concern caused. There is no need for you to take any action."
Come on then Admiral. Explain. We'll wait.
Their spokesman Deepus Shittus will be along momentarily.
OK. Let's talk UK GDP. First, the good. The UK economy began rebalancing in 2017, with manufacturing growing, and the current account deficit narrowing. The savings rate, which hit a low of 4% in the first quarter, also bounced back.
Now the bad.
The UK economy is still unbalanced, and we all exaggerate the effects of a rise in production. Let's start with Household Final Expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
(A quick segue. Consumer spending adds to the GDP number, even if we're borrowing to import Chinese goods. Imagine an iPhone enters the country, costing Apple Retail $500. The costs on the journey from Felixstowe Docks to Felix's pocket constitute work, and add to GDP. So, the lorry driver's salary? GDP. The lorry company's profit? GDP. The rent on Apple's Regent Street store? Part of GDP. The lighting bill in the store? Also GDP. The advertisement for the iPhone? That too.)
UK 66.4 Italy 60.8 Spain 57.6 France 55.3 Germany 53.3 Netherlands 44.2
Because production, and specifically manufacturing, is a small proportion of our economy, changes to the consumer spending number will have a larger impact on GDP. By contrast, if Germany's manufacturing number disappoints, it's likely to have a very negative impact.
In Q4, consumer spending in the UK was bad.
Visa tracks spending (and does a pretty good job). They saw overall spending fall 1% year-over-year in December. Given consumer prices are up 2.7% y-o-y, that means December real spending fell 3.7%. Fortunately, the consumer spending mix is changing positively, with restaurants and bars (with the highest proportion of UK value add) rising, while those segments with the highest imported proportions (such as clothing and footwear) dropping the most.
Nevertheless, the biggest component of household consumption dropped in real terms. Manufacturing contributes just 10% to UK GDP. Even if manufacturing rose 20% in 2017 (which it didn't), that increase would still be swamped by the drop in consumer spending.
One final thought. Many people are using the strength of Q4 2016 (when the UK economy expanded 0.7%) to predict similar growth this year. This is what the Visa spending report had to say about that quarter: "Consumer spending continued to increase solidly in the run up to Christmas, rounding off the fastest growing quarter for two years. Average year-on-year growth for each month in Q4 2016 was 2.8%, twice as high as the average rates for Q2 and Q3."
My guess is that UK GDP for 2017 will end up at 1.6%, with upward revisions to the first quarter offset by weak consumer spending at the end of the year.
Admiral emailed my son earlier today regarding this story...
"You may have seen a story in the news which claims we use customers' names to price our insurance based on race. This is 100% not the case and we do not, and have never, used this information to provide a price to our customers. I'm sorry if this story has caused you any concerns.
To offer our prices we use a complex rating structure and rate on many different variables and data sources. The journalists have misunderstood our pricing structure and the insurance quotes in the story are not like for like.
This email is to offer you an explanation of the press story and to offer my apologies for any concern caused. There is no need for you to take any action."
Come on then Admiral. Explain. We'll wait.
Their spokesman Deepus Shittus will be along momentarily.
He's just hitting some of his desktop equipment - notably, the fan.
As a general principle, it seems reasonable for insurance models to discriminate by things you can control (credit history, past accidents) but not by things you can’t (gender, race, surname)</
As a general principle that sounds fair, but:-
1. Things you can't control may still result in a bigger risk for the insurer. Age is outside one's control, but young people get charged higher premiums than middle aged people because they have more accidents. WRT gender, women tend to have better reflexes than men, so they tend to be better drivers.
2. Sensible risk-based pricing may still have disproportionate impacts on specific groups. Higher premiums for people in Inner cities will tend to mean people of colour will pay more.
3. What is outside of one's control? Some alcoholics, drug addicts, or people with poor credit ratings will argue these things are outside their control? What if one is poor? Is it fair for a company to take into account the greater risk of default?
Andrea Davison on the Richie Allen show now. She's still in hiding in Argentina. having left this country in a hurry without a passport in July 2012, having lost a defamation civil court case with Gordon Bowden on 26 out of 27 counts.
Let's see what she has to say! For those who don't know her, she was a former intelligence advisor to the Labour party, and worked with Tony Blair in the past amongst others.
For all those of you who do not recycle how would you cope with our local council (Conwy) agreeing to move to four weekly bin collections. And yes, we have had annual 5% council tax increases for years
I do recycle and I'd be pissed off with monthly bin collections. I wouldn't want rotting food and dirty nappies sat in my bin festering for a month.
You have to recycle food waste in its own container collected weekly
OK. Let's talk UK GDP. First, the good. The UK economy began rebalancing in 2017, with manufacturing growing, and the current account deficit narrowing. The savings rate, which hit a low of 4% in the first quarter, also bounced back.
Now the bad.
The UK economy is still unbalanced, and we all exaggerate the effects of a rise in production. Let's start with Household Final Expenditure as (snip).
Because production, and specifically manufacturing, is a small proportion of our economy, changes to the consumer spending number will have a larger impact on GDP. By contrast, if Germany's manufacturing number disappoints, it's likely to have a very negative impact.
In Q4, consumer spending in the UK was bad.
Visa tracks spending (and does a pretty good job). They saw overall spending fall 1% year-over-year in December. Given consumer prices are up 2.7% y-o-y, that means December real spending fell 3.7%. Fortunately, the consumer spending mix is changing positively, with restaurants and bars (with the highest proportion of UK value add) rising, while those segments with the highest imported proportions (such as clothing and footwear) dropping the most.
Nevertheless, the biggest component of household consumption dropped in real terms. Manufacturing contributes just 10% to UK GDP. Even if manufacturing rose 20% in 2017 (which it didn't), that increase would still be swamped by the drop in consumer spending.
One final thought. Many people are using the strength of Q4 2016 (when the UK economy expanded 0.7%) to predict similar growth this year. This is what the Visa spending report had to say about that quarter: "Consumer spending continued to increase solidly in the run up to Christmas, rounding off the fastest growing quarter for two years. Average year-on-year growth for each month in Q4 2016 was 2.8%, twice as high as the average rates for Q2 and Q3."
My guess is that UK GDP for 2017 will end up at 1.6%, with upward revisions to the first quarter offset by weak consumer spending at the end of the year.
So is the cheque in the post Robert? I think you are still being a little pessimistic but what’s a tenth of two? I think we will find that construction and investment have been stronger than we thought. Also potentially exports. That extra revenue from the government is coming from somewhere.
OK. Let's talk UK GDP. First, the good. The UK economy began rebalancing in 2017, with manufacturing growing, and the current account deficit narrowing. The savings rate, which hit a low of 4% in the first quarter, also bounced back.
Now the bad.
The UK economy is still unbalanced, and we all exaggerate the effects of a rise in production. Let's start with Household Final Expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
(A quick segue. Consumer spending adds to the GDP number, even if we're borrowing to import Chinese goods. Imagine an iPhone enters the country, the iPhone? That too.)
UK 66.4 Italy 60.8 Spain 57.6 France 55.3 Germany 53.3 Netherlands 44.2
Because production, and specifically manufacturing, is a small proportion of our economy, changes to the consumer spending number will have a larger impact on GDP. By contrast, if Germany's manufacturing number disappoints, it's likely to have a very negative impact.
In Q4, consumer spending in the UK was bad.
Visa tracks spending (and does a pretty good job). They saw overall spending fall 1% year-over-year in December. Given consumer prices are up 2.7% y-o-y, that means December real spending fell 3.7%. Fortunately, the consumer spending mix is changing positively, with restaurants and bars (with the highest proportion of UK value add) rising, while those segments with the highest imported proportions (such as clothing and footwear) dropping the most.
Nevertheless, the biggest component of household consumption dropped in real terms. Manufacturing contributes just 10% to UK GDP. Even if manufacturing rose 20% in 2017 (which it didn't), that increase would still be swamped by the drop in consumer spending.
One final thought. Many people are using the strength of Q4 2016 (when the UK economy expanded 0.7%) to predict similar growth this year. This is what the Visa spending report had to say about that quarter: "Consumer spending continued to increase solidly in the run up to Christmas, rounding off the fastest growing quarter for two years. Average year-on-year growth for each month in Q4 2016 was 2.8%, twice as high as the average rates for Q2 and Q3."
My guess is that UK GDP for 2017 will end up at 1.6%, with upward revisions to the first quarter offset by weak consumer spending at the end of the year.
For all those of you who do not recycle how would you cope with our local council (Conwy) agreeing to move to four weekly bin collections. And yes, we have had annual 5% council tax increases for years
We get most of our food delivered from Abel and Cole, who take away the boxes it comes in with each new weekly delivery. I often forget to put the bin out for our fortnightly collections, so it becomes a 4-weekly collection in effect....
Re: insurance. The fact that women tend to have fewer accidents than men (which I do not dispute) should not be used as an excuse to charge individual men higher premiums. A very good male driver or very poor female driver get unfairly punished/rewarded by such a system.
It’s not reasonable to use characteristics of groups that you have no choice in whether you belong to them as a basis of price discrimination, especially for a product like car insurance that is essentially an compulsory purchase.
For all those of you who do not recycle how would you cope with our local council (Conwy) agreeing to move to four weekly bin collections. And yes, we have had annual 5% council tax increases for years
I'm sure Dr Sally Baker wouldn't be at all surprised by that. Having said that, neither am I at all surprised by it. I could talk for hours about how poorly Conwy Council has operated over the years............
Re: insurance. The fact that women tend to have fewer accidents than men (which I do not dispute) should not be used as an excuse to charge individual men higher premiums. It’s not reasonable to use characteristics of groups that you have no choice in whether you belong to them as a basis of price discrimination, especially for a product like car insurance that is essentially an compulsory purchase.
Why is it not reasonable, particularly with an insurance model based on sharing the risk over an identifiable grouping? What are you suggesting, individual interviews?
In practice I doubt we will save anything from our EU membership fee after Brexit. We will continue to make payments to other European countries, not least because it buys us some influence. The rest is a wash.
We will save £5-7 bn in direct payments. The question will be whether that is offset by a general reduction of tax take if Brexit does slow the economy. As this will all be hypotheticals I can foresee an endless argument about it. I suspect we will never really know for sure. Hey ho. I can hardly wait.
Leaving aside indirect effects beyond the costs of replicating resources we currently contribute to collectively, I doubt we will save any money at all with Brexit. That assumes we will continue to make subsidy payments to the EU and/or individual European countries. I think we will want to do that to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a vote at the EU..
If you give people meaningful amounts of money you become interesting to them. We don't have a lot of other leverage.
For all those of you who do not recycle how would you cope with our local council (Conwy) agreeing to move to four weekly bin collections. And yes, we have had annual 5% council tax increases for years
I'm sure Dr Sally Baker wouldn't be at all surprised by that. Having said that, neither am I at all surprised by it. I could talk for hours about how poorly Conwy Council has operated over the years............
And having lived here for 53 years so could I but they have been good on recycling
OK. Let's talk UK GDP. First, the good. The UK economy began rebalancing in 2017, with manufacturing growing, and the current account deficit narrowing. The savings rate, which hit a low of 4% in the first quarter, also bounced back.
Now the bad.
The UK economy is still unbalanced, and we all exaggerate the effects of a rise in production. Let's start with Household Final Expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
(A quick segue. Consumer spending adds to the GDP number, even if we're borrowing to import Chinese goods. Imagine an iPhone enters the country, costing Apple Retail $500. The costs on the journey from Felixstowe Docks to Felix's pocket constitute work, and add to GDP. So, the lorry driver's salary? GDP. The lorry company's profit? GDP. The rent on Apple's Regent Street store? Part of GDP. The lighting bill in the store? Also GDP. The advertisement for the iPhone? That too.)
UK 66.4 Italy 60.8 Spain 57.6 France 55.3 Germany 53.3 Netherlands 44.2
Robert, retail sales were flat for the quarter and inflation is only heading in one direction this year. Output in the productive industries, not just manufacturing but creative and other areas seems to be holding up very well based on overseas demand. As I said earlier the UK seems to have lucked into a position of being weak against the currency we need to be weak against (EUR) and recovering against the ones we need to recover against (USD and JPY).
I agree with the central premise that the UK economy is far too dependent on household expenditure, but changing that will have to start somewhere.
Comments
Campaigners say all-women shortlists have pushed out black and minority ethnic candidates
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/23/labour-selects-just-one-bme-candidate-in-marginal-seats
Nothing new in this, I remember this from the eighties:
http://ntlk.net/2016/03/27/racist-ai-is-an-old-problem/
The medical school in question actually had a higher percentage of BME students than other universities, but foolish to write it into their algorithm. It also discriminated against females and working class addresses btw.
I’m hoping for a six figure payout for all the racist insurance policies.
But I suspect that its resonance (with some) was in part because of Germany's decision to let in a million migrants the previous year. It was not just the scale, nor the concern that some will have had at the influx of a large number of young males from deeply misogynist, patriarchal and violent societies (a concern which has to some extent proved to be justified - see the sexual attacks on women in Germany and Sweden, for instance) but also the fact that Germany took a unilateral decision which would nonetheless impact other EU countries, thus blowing a bloody great hole in the idea of European solidarity and rules etc. Cameron had been told in his renegotiation by the Germans that FoM was inviolable / nothing could be done to help him on the immigration issue - and then, when it suited Germany, the rules (on asylum, migration etc) could be torn up. Whatever the justification - given the facts on the ground - it will have looked to some as if the rules were something which Britain was expected to follow to the letter and which other (more important) countries could ignore. Not a great look when you are trying to win a referendum on remaining in a laws-based institution.
But it is certainly correct that, whatever the formal position, Turkey was not joining the EU in any practical sense in the near future at the time of the referendum.
It may change in future and join. I am a touch sceptical that something as deeply embedded as a religiously based culture can be changed simply because some laws have been enacted. A few civics classes don't change matters which are more central to people's identity than we might appreciate. But we will only be able to judge this in decades. Turkey seems to have turned its back, for now, on secular democracy and liberalisation. So the question of it joining the EU is moot.
Plus you’re likely to get a CIFAS marker for that too.
The comparison you make is flawed as it's charging people more for precisely the same good or service, whereas the insurance has to take into account multiple risk factors to arrive at a price and variability in quote is not a bug but a feature.
Mr. Eagles (or someone else, of course), could be worth trying Singh, an Indian/Hindu name.
We've injuries to all of our first and second choice front rows. We are seriously down to 3rd choice in every position.
An injury to Johnny Gray or Barclay and we are fucked.
Most people would want to avoid this, because you might have to explain to the police that you do have the benefit of insurance even when your licence shows a different name to your policy.
Mr. Tyndall, I was looking at that, but decided against it.
If you’re paying it over 12 months you’re signing a credit agreement and creating a false footprint.
Such hyperbole does occur in regular campaigns (24 hours to save the NHS/£ etc) the difference is that elections are for a term, so it holds back the more extreme claims. Referendums are more rare, so anything goes, and did. Not an edifying face of the country shown on either side, and not a rift that I expect to see healed in my lifetime.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/why-leeds-and-bradford-are-crash-for-cash-fraud-hotspots-1-7824734
“Leeds and Bradford remain among the nation’s hotspots for the offence, according to Aviva, whose analysis revealed more than 3,000 organised crash for cash claimants last year - the equivalent of one every three hours.
One in every four of these claims happened in Birmingham, though Coventry, Oldham, Luton and parts of London have also seen large numbers of complaints.”
Draw your own conclusions.
And the 2017 manifesto was a catastrophe.
Has he eloped with Jared??
Iyi aksamlar.
Biggest snub (for me) is Denis Villeneuve not getting a director nod for Bladerunner 2049. He really deserved one.
https://www.ft.com/content/e7585cea-003e-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
"Environment secretary Mr Gove was notably restrained in his support for Mr Johnson on Tuesday. He is said by friends to still have his own eyes on the top job. “I don’t think he’s plotting, but I think he’s certainly making sure that he doesn’t undermine any opportunity that arises,” he said of the foreign secretary.
Mr Gove has repaired relations with Mr Johnson since the bruising leadership contest in the aftermath of the EU referendum, but is maintaining a distance. “He’s certainly not Boris’s guy now,” said one Gove ally."
There is roughly £18bn of gross payments, and £11bn of net payments. If the government was to replace all of the existing EU spending like for like then it would still have £11bn to spend on our priorities
Perhaps one day the Left will call for equal pricing, as every other distinction amounts to a form of discrimination.
"You may have seen a story in the news which claims we use customers' names to price our insurance based on race. This is 100% not the case and we do not, and have never, used this information to provide a price to our customers. I'm sorry if this story has caused you any concerns.
To offer our prices we use a complex rating structure and rate on many different variables and data sources. The journalists have misunderstood our pricing structure and the insurance quotes in the story are not like for like.
This email is to offer you an explanation of the press story and to offer my apologies for any concern caused. There is no need for you to take any action."
However, it has been made illegal to take account ofthe fact that women have fewer accidents per mile in insurance premium quotes. An EU law I believe. Why this is not a subsidiarity issue that should be left to individual EU countries I don't know.
It is not just how much but the criteria for receiving it. The EU CAP is all about supporting small to medium uneconomic (French) farmers.
...he says, desperately trying to appear as if he had remembered that
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/23/france-lure-london-bankers-families-offer-french-lessons-leave/
I suspect there are more 10x more French bankers in London right now than there ever will be British bankers in Paris...
A name like Evershed can be easily checked to see if the same Evershed has made accident claims whilst living at a different address.
If you want a low quote, stay at the same address a long time and live in the country not the town. - oh and don't make accident claims.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/92289/excl-boris-johnson-allies
EXCL: Boris Johnson allies admit they 'f****d up' over NHS cash demand
One source told PoliticsHome: "He got a proper bitch-slapping."
Has anyone changed their mind about any of these things?
And great news for Henry Smith - he doesn’t have to carry the financial burden of segments of drivers who must be more prone to claims.
Even if they have not been delivery falsified, they will have been so badly put together as to be utterly meaningless.
Incidentally Tamworth, not Birmingham, is the place where I would be most on the alert for scammers.
Now the bad.
The UK economy is still unbalanced, and we all exaggerate the effects of a rise in production. Let's start with Household Final Expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
(A quick segue. Consumer spending adds to the GDP number, even if we're borrowing to import Chinese goods. Imagine an iPhone enters the country, costing Apple Retail $500. The costs on the journey from Felixstowe Docks to Felix's pocket constitute work, and add to GDP. So, the lorry driver's salary? GDP. The lorry company's profit? GDP. The rent on Apple's Regent Street store? Part of GDP. The lighting bill in the store? Also GDP. The advertisement for the iPhone? That too.)
So, here we are compared to other European countries (using World Bank data for 2016): Because production, and specifically manufacturing, is a small proportion of our economy, changes to the consumer spending number will have a larger impact on GDP. By contrast, if Germany's manufacturing number disappoints, it's likely to have a very negative impact.
In Q4, consumer spending in the UK was bad.
Visa tracks spending (and does a pretty good job). They saw overall spending fall 1% year-over-year in December. Given consumer prices are up 2.7% y-o-y, that means December real spending fell 3.7%. Fortunately, the consumer spending mix is changing positively, with restaurants and bars (with the highest proportion of UK value add) rising, while those segments with the highest imported proportions (such as clothing and footwear) dropping the most.
Nevertheless, the biggest component of household consumption dropped in real terms. Manufacturing contributes just 10% to UK GDP. Even if manufacturing rose 20% in 2017 (which it didn't), that increase would still be swamped by the drop in consumer spending.
One final thought. Many people are using the strength of Q4 2016 (when the UK economy expanded 0.7%) to predict similar growth this year. This is what the Visa spending report had to say about that quarter: "Consumer spending continued to increase solidly in the run up to Christmas, rounding off the fastest growing quarter for two years. Average year-on-year growth for each month in Q4 2016 was 2.8%, twice as high as the average rates for Q2 and Q3."
My guess is that UK GDP for 2017 will end up at 1.6%, with upward revisions to the first quarter offset by weak consumer spending at the end of the year.
Why are any of those my different ?
In the USA they adjust Young drivers insurance based on their school and college grades.
Swots don’t crash cars apparently,
Let's see what she has to say! For those who don't know her, she was a former intelligence advisor to the Labour party, and worked with Tony Blair in the past amongst others.
That said, we also eat out quite a bit.
It’s not reasonable to use characteristics of groups that you have no choice in whether you belong to them as a basis of price discrimination, especially for a product like car insurance that is essentially an compulsory purchase.
If you give people meaningful amounts of money you become interesting to them. We don't have a lot of other leverage.
I agree with the central premise that the UK economy is far too dependent on household expenditure, but changing that will have to start somewhere.