Is Brexit like when you accidentally sign up for a subscription service?

For once i can support  the news that the Government is expected to change the law in a bid to stop consumers accidentally signing up to recurring monthly subscriptions.

The Independent tells us that Research by Citizens Advice estimates that around two million consumers every year have problems cancelling subscriptions.

Additionally, over 40 per cent of British people are paying for a subscription that they do not use.

Now the Government is to consult on a plan that would require companies to properly notify customers when they are about to take payment for subscriptions.

Amazon’s Prime service automatically enrols people who take free trials for a whole year’s £79 payment if they do not cancel within the trial period.

In March 2015 the Advertising Standards Authority banned Amazon from using direct mail to offer “free trials” after it found the shopping giant was misleading consumers about the cost of the service.

I was caught out of this . It was only when I was looking at my Bank statement  that I found out that I had been debited for using a service that I didn't even know I signed up to even for a trial period, and never used.

When you making an order you find yourself clicking boxes and perhaps not paying to much attention.

Fortunately I was able to cancel and get a refund . but I wonder how many people reading this do not realise they are being debited £79 a year after clicking  a box for something  they haven't used or intend to.

However Is it just me or is there a similarity to Brexit here .

People who signed up to leaving the EU last may may well be thinking , if I knew this was going to cost me this , then I wouldn't have put an X in that box!

Indeed there wasn't even any small print , and many of the claims we saw advertised especially this one turned out to be false.


and those who believed that we were going to stay in the single market, may be wondering,if they were misled.

What is the difference between being misled by a company or the government ,in that we find out we have been committed to something , we have been misled on the value we receive?

Belfast West. How do Sinn Féin spread their vote?

For supporters of the Single Transferable Vote (STV)  the result in the recent Northern Ireland election provided some intriguing results, None more so than Belfast west

The election was carried out after the number of seats in the Assembly were cut with only 5 rather than 6 MLA being elected.

It meant that  Party strategist  had to examine their potential vote and try and forecast how many seats they can win.

Put up too few candidates and get a swing and you may miss out on a seat in a constituency.

Out uo too many candidates and your vote could be split and candidates eliminated  before their vote can be transferred between each other.

Even in seats where you are dominant  you need to ensure that you don't lose out if one candidate of your party gets a large number of First preference votes and you can see some eliminated before transfers come to their rescue.

That is why Belfast West was so intriguing

2017

2017 Assembly election: Belfast West - 5 seats[1]
Party		Candidate	% 1st Pref	Count 1	Count 2	Count 3	Count 4
	Sinn Féin	Órlaithí Flynn	17.1	6,918
	People Before Profit	Gerry Carroll	12.2	4,903	6,514	8,252
	Sinn Féin	Alex Maskey	15.7	6,346	6,451	7,036
	Sinn Féin	Fra McCann	15.4	6,201	6,314	6,636	7,067
	Sinn Féin	Pat Sheehan	13.5	5,466	5,515	5,739	5,903
	DUP	Frank McCoubrey	10.1	4,063	4,372	4,490	4,521
	SDLP	Alex Attwood	8.6	3,452	4,019
	People Before Profit	Michael Collins	2.7	1,096
	Alliance	Sorcha Eastwood	1.9	747
	UUP	Fred Rogers	1.2	486
	Workers' Party	Conor Campbell	1.0	415
	Green (NI)	Ellen Murray	0.6	251
Electorate: 61,309   Valid: 40,344   Spoilt: 586 (1.4%)   Quota: 6,725   Turnout: 40,930 (66.76%)

Sinn Féin won 4 out of the 5 seats with only  Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit gaining the other seat

What is interesting  is that Sinn Féin candidates topped the poll and hat one candidate does not run away from his or pack members.

This was even true when  Gerry Adams was a candidate and the seat had six members.

2007 Assembly election: Belfast West - 6 seats
Party		Candidate	% 1st Pref	Count 1	Count 2	Count 3	Count 4	Count 5	Count 6
	Sinn Féin	Gerry Adams	17.8	6,029
	Sinn Féin	Sue Ramsey	14.0	4,715	5,266.60
	Sinn Féin	Paul Maskey	12.9	4,368	4,758.60	4,774.05	4,783.95	4,821.80	5,074.80
	Sinn Féin	Jennifer McCann	12.6	4,265	4,294.80	4,665.75	4,667.70	4,693.50	4,848.50
	SDLP	Alex Attwood	9.0	3,036	3,148.80	3,149.70	3,196.90	3,234.90	4,779.10
	Sinn Féin	Fra McCann	12.6	4,254	4,323.80	4,344.95	4,353.80	4,378	4,646.85
	DUP	Diane Dodds	10.8	3,661	3,661	3,661.15	3,671.15	3,677.15	4,166
	SDLP	Margret Walsh	3.2	1,074	1,086.20	1,087.10	1,110.30	1,156.50
	People Before Profit	Seán Mitchell	2.3	774	789	789.60	830.40	968.80
	UUP	Louis West	1.7	558	558.80	558.80	579.80	581.80
	Workers' Party	John Lowry	1.3	434	440	440.45	452.65	452.65
	Republican Sinn Féin	Geraldine Taylor	1.3	427	429	429.45	437.05
	Alliance	Dan McGuinness	0.4	127	132.40	133.30
	Make Politicians History	Rainbow George	0.2	68	69	69
Electorate: 50,792   Valid: 33,790   Spoilt: 448   Quota: 4,828   Turnout: 34,238 (67.4%)

Surely this can't be  simply as a result of voter preferences within the Part candidates.

I would suspect that a Candidate like Addams would get a huge number of the First preference  and his surplus votes going o another Star candidate leaving the rest to battle not to be eliminated in the early rounds;


Does the Party have a campaign strategy to ensure a spread of First Preference votes ?

The question that intrigues me is how does a Part make sure that their first preference vote does not go to a " Star" candidate, and it is spread more evenly through the Party candidates .

There are calls for election to the Welsh Assembly to be conducted under STV something I support

But it is clear that if this happens the role of Party Strategist will be enhanced and they will need to learn  how to maximise their vote and maybe poor over then statistics over a number of elections, both in the North and Republic of Ireland.

Is there any information 

Neil McEvoy suspended for one month by "Independent" panel.

There can be no denying Plaid AM and Cardiff Councillor Neil Mcevoy is a controversial and confrontational Politician but I wonder if the action taking against him by a disciplinary panel was little more than a politically motivated Kangaroo Court.

A panel have found that Mr McEvoy  was "bullying" towards a member of council staff.An independent panel  (This  open to question seeing who appointed them) heard evidence after it was alleged that Plaid Cymru Councillor Neil McEvoy, who is also an Assembly Member, had "threatened" the job security of a member of council staff after a court hearing..They found he had failed to show respect to a council employee and that his behaviour was bullying.They also said the councillor was "evasive" as he gave his evidence.

But did not accept an allegation that Coun McEvoy brought either the office of councillor or Cardiff council as a whole into disrepute.

Finance team member Deborah Carter had been at an eviction hearing at Cardiff's civil justice centre in July 2015.

In that, Amanda Williams - a constituent of Coun McEvoy - was told by a judge she was being evicted from her council home after accumulating £3,700 of arrears.

As Coun McEvoy, Miss Williams as well as Ms Carter and her council colleague Dale Skinner left the court room, he said:

 "I can't wait for May 2017 when the restructure of the council happens".

He admits both making the comments and taking a photograph within the court building - a criminal offence - but disputes the comments were made as a threat to Ms Carter. He said they were made to Ms Williams in a bid to placate her anger over her eviction.

He denied bringing the office of councillor into disrepute saying he enhanced his role "by standing up for someone vulnerable".

Gwydion Hughes, for the ombudsman, said that Coun McEvoy had been an evasive witness and was "prone to avoiding the question".

He said that neither of the council employees who gave evidence, Ms Carter and Mr Skinner, had "an axe to grind".

"Neither has any real axe to grind or potential benefit to gain from this process. In fact, quite the opposite. The process has simply involved them in the stressful process of giving evidence.

"Neither gave their evidence in a partial way, both were willing to give concessions where appropriate. They were both live to the difficult position Coun McEvoy and his constituent found themselves in.

"There was in my view sympathy displayed by both."

Mr Hughes said that both council staff were "clear" the comments were directed to Ms Carter and neither had suggested they were towards M r Skinner.

He said that if Coun McEvoy's account that the comments were "thrown behind him" were true, there would have been some debate about who they were directed to.

Mr Hughes said that when giving his evidence in the hearing, Coun McEvoy was "prone to trying to avoid the question".

"He was highly partial and unwilling to make the sensible concessions that truthful witnesses do. He has a stake in the outcome of the case. That's the same approach he took in interview when he finally agreed to one."At no point did he give his own account of what happened.""The witnesses considered it a threat to the stability of employment

Counsel Jonathan Mendus Edwards, representing Coun McEvoy, said there was no evidence that Plaid Cymru's cost-cutting policy of sacking senior management related to staff of Ms Carter's level.

"It refers to making people redundant at a level higher than the person in question here".

"Of course Coun McEvoy stands his ground, this was an attempt to get him".

Coun McEvoy "is willing to make waves, which in the nature of things will upset some people".

And while he questioned the credibility of Ms Carter of a witness, he added: 

"We do not say [employee] Dale Skinner was a deceitful witness, we say that the complaint as a whole involves over egging the pudding".

Mr Mendus Edwards said that the complaint was not taken further by Ms Carter but assistant director Jane Thomas - a role which would be at risk under Plaid's proposals.

But, Ms Carter had told the panel that when she returned to her office after the court hearing she went to raise her concerns with a manager.

Her immediate line manager was at the address in Fairwater dealing with the eviction so she followed protocol and went to her next highest manager, Miss Thomas.

Mr Mendus Edwards said:

"The evidence from Deborah Carter was that she didn't know Coun McEvoy and had no knowledge of his plan.
"That came later, after others were involved and involved the addition of evidence in effect that was not there before".
"The credibility of Ms Carter cannot be assumed and given effect in this case."If that's the case you cannot be sure the words from Coun McEvoy were said to, or directed at her".

Perhaps the interesting  part of this story complaint was submitted to the public service ombudsman by Fairwater Labour Councillor Paul Mitchell.

I think you could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that this was a politically motivated trial.

Whether Councilor McEvoy;s remark was  intended to be heard or not , surly an expensive trial went top far ?

You could well ask that if this was not an attempt to ptevent  Councillor Mcevoy from standing in May's election.

I wonder how many times  a council  member of staff has been told that there may be a new leadership of the council and that there will be changes.

It may not be right but I bet Labour Politicians  who feel it is their God given right to run some Welsh Councils have not been so subtle.

Labour AM Rhiannon Passmore called for him to be suspended from Plaid Cymru following the ruling.

The first day of Plaid Cymru's conference in Newport has coincided with the final day of the tribunal.

Plaid Cymru's chairman Alun Ffred Jones said: "We will be looking carefully at the judgment and we will be deciding on the course of action next week.

"We expect the highest level of behaviour from all elected representatives and I will be meeting Neil McEvoy next week".

However I suspect Plaud members may make it cleat their support for Neil MCevoy when he addresses the conference today and would be vary angry if ther Party bowed to out side pressure/

Ever since these disciplinary panels were set up I have had the feeling that they have been used as a means of silencing  those who are prepared not only to confront the ruling party but take no action against Councillors  who are dishonest and corrupt.

It appears to me it is this sort of disciplinary panels that is bringing things into disrepute.

The most successful political Union in history means Wales is poorest part of UK.

Theresa May has accused the SNP of having "tunnel vision" over independence as she insisted that "politics is not a game".

It os of course the main aim of the SNP  and it seems weird for the Prime Minister  to talk about tunnel vision since she appears to be driving  the Nrexit Train into a tunnel at high speed without any idea what is on the other side.

The prime minister refused to be drawn on whether or not she would grant permission for a second referendum.

She was speaking to BBC Scotland ahead of her speech at the Scottish Conservative conference on Friday.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Mrs May's government had "no mandate" in Scotland.

And she accused the UK government of "obstinacy and intransigence" in its dealing with the devolved administrations ahead of the formal triggering of the Brexit process, which is expected to happen later this month.

The Scottish government has published a 60-page document which sets out proposals it believes could allow Scotland to remain in the EU single market even if the rest of the UK leaves - with Ms Sturgeon saying a second independence referendum is "all but inevitable" if that does not happen.

Mrs May said she was "looking very closely" at the proposals, adding: 

"We are working with them on those plans - there are issues that they have raised that we have taken on board."

I doubt if the SNP or anyone else outside May's cabinet see anything has been taken on board 

She said her objective was to use the Brexit negotiations to secure a 

"good trade agreement that works for the whole of the UK, but crucially a trade agreement that works for Scotland as well."

Come of it there will be only one part of the UK governments  that is in their minds and thats the City of Londo

She said it was wrong to say she backed a so-called "hard Brexit", but that she instead wanted "a Brexit that is going to be right for the United Kingdom, and that means being right for all parts of the United Kingdom".

She also said it was "very clear" that people in Scotland did not want another vote on independence - but did not say whether she would grant permission if the Scottish Parliament called for a second referendum.

Mrs May added:

 "To me, politics isn't a game. Politics is about people's lives, it's about delivering on the issues that really matter to them on a day-to-day basis."I can't help but feel that the SNP has a tunnel vision about independence. Actually I think what people want is for the SNP government to get on with dealing with the issues they want to see addressed on a day-to-day basis.
"Issues like the state of the economy, reforming schools - education used to be such a great flagship for Scotland, but sadly in recent years we have seen that deteriorating."

 Of course its booming in England 

Mrs May said she was "passionate" about preserving the United Kingdom - which she described as the most successful political union in history - and pointed out that the first visit she had made as prime minister was to Scotland.

Apart from the fact one part of the United Kingdom left in 1922 after a bitter and violent campaign in 1922.The latest figures comparing the wealth generated in different parts of the UK show that Wales remains bottom of the league table, behind every other UK nation and every region of England. The so-called Gross Value Added (Income Approach) for last year was published today, with the figure per person in Wales at less than half the level of England's richest region, which was London.

London £43,629
Wales £18,002

The Union is a disaster for Wales, and Brexit will make it worse as we are unlikely to get anything from Westminster to match the aid that we received from Brussles.

The argument that we are too poor for independence  ( which unfortunately has been made by Plaid leader Leanne Wood in the past ) is one that sees this going on for ever.

Only Independence will create the conditions  for Wales and Scotland to achieve the sort of prosperity aligned with the Social Democracy we see in the Scandinavian countries.

I hope Leanne uses the I word in her conference speech today . for to long Plaid have been wedded to the idea of making the assembly work , It is now time to push like our friends in Scotland  for Independence .

What the First Scottish Independence  Referendum did was create a mindset in Scotland that Independence wasn't what Ms May calls a game but a reality.

It is our duty to create a similar mindset in Wales. To fail to do so especially after Brexit will see  us becoming little more than Poor West Britons where a change  of Westminster government will make no difference.

"Cultural Fit" a new way to describe Yes Men?

Imagine the SNP Government in Scotland demanding  that contracts on;y went to firms that supported increased powers let alone Independence.

There would be a public outcry and Unionist would be frothing out the mouth

However  it seems that the UK government  seem to be assuring that contractors bidding for work with the government are being asked to affirm that they back Brexit.

According to the Guardian

Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has inserted a clause into advertisements inviting tech companies to bid for work, saying that in order to have the right “cultural fit” for the task, they must “be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union”.
Pro-Brexit ministers have sometimes been frustrated by civil servants’ lack of enthusiasm for the complex task of unpicking Britain’s close relationship with the EU and appear to be determined to hire firms that share their optimism.

 Last December, contractor Deloitte apologised after details of a damning report it had written about Downing Street’s plans for handling the article 50 process were leaked.

The company also agreed to pull out of bidding for government contracts for six months.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: 

“The Conservative Brexit government demanding there must be a ‘cultural fit’ is straight out of the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
“The private opinions of government employees have always been their own business. Now they are required to support Brexit, will they have to support the Tories too?”

 “Professionals will always strive for the best outcomes in their work without being told how they should and shouldn’t think.”

The New York Times   claim that " Cultural Fit"

When done carefully, selecting new workers this way can make organizations more productive and profitable. But cultural fit has morphed into a far more nebulous and potentially dangerous concept. It has shifted from systematic analysis of who will thrive in a given workplace to snap judgments by managers about who they’d rather hang out with. In the process, fit has become a catchall used to justify hiring people who are similar to decision makers and rejecting people who are not.

We used to call it employing Yes Men.

Would anybody gaining such a contract seriously try to undermine Brexit as the government seem to be suggesting?

In any Job you need people who are enthusiastic for carrying out their mandate.

If the plumber installing your bathroom looks at your plans and says that the new suite that you want is not going to fit in the space available you would be wise to listen

There are times in any project when those actually doing the work need to tell those giving the orders . 

"Look this is not going to work this way and I have a idea which will but it may lead to a different outcome than the one you originally wanted.

Margaret Thatcher used to ask "Is he one of us?" promotion to a backbencher.

Mrs May seems to have extended it to everybody employed in any capacity as far as Brexit is concerned.

Cymru, Scotland, and Catalonia.

     

Once again over at Borthlas  John Dixon has written an article I wish I had written  (only better),

Entitled For Wales, don't see Scotland he points out that those who are arguing that somehow there could be a upsurge for Independence in Wales.

He writes (but read the full article)

The result is that the future looks very different for the two nations, particularly in the light of Brexit. For all the optimism of independentistas, it is far from certain that Scotland will make the break and choose a European future rather than an isolationist British one. For their sakes, I hope that they do, even if such a move would leave Wales even more vulnerable to domination from our very much larger eastern neighbour. But we cannot be certain, and should not take the outcome for granted. We can, though, at least consider the impact on Wales of such an outcome.I fear that, to return to my starting point, too many independentistas in Wales are reading across from Scotland to Wales, and hoping (or even assuming) that Scottish independence (and, with that, continued Scottish membership of the EU) will make Welsh independence more attractive and more likely. I can see why that might be the case in the context of continued UK membership of the EU, particularly if other European nations such as Catalunya follow a similar path. The parallel, particularly if those other nations (as seems likely) make a success of their choice, is clear enough. But the parallel in the case of a Wales which would have to face a significant transitional period outside the UK whilst seeking to negotiate entry to the EU as a new member is a great deal less obvious. I’d go so far as to say that it isn’t really a parallel at all; it would be, rather, a unique situation. As a result, people would naturally see it as being a great deal more risky.
The assumption that a Scottish exit from the UK before Brexit happens will lead to a demand for the same thing in Wales is a lazy one. The danger is that, by making such an assumption, and through continued failure to make the case for Wales to take control of her own affairs, the likelier future for Wales in a UK shorn of Scotland and outside the EU is greater integration into England, especially in economic terms. Oh, I’m sure that we’ll be allowed to keep our little Assembly down in Cardiff, but our voice will be heard even less than it is now. The timescale for any change in direction to avert that outcome is short, and the clock is ticking.

There is however another factor that of Catalonia 

Artur Mas, together with two ministers from his former government,has gone on trial for for having organised an informal, non legally binding, consultation on Catalonia’s independence in November 2014. That day is remembered by Catalans as a peaceful, civic and democratic moment when they were able to express their opinion on whether Catalonia should be an independent nation or not. That day, 2.3 million Catalans took part and 89 percent voted for an independent Catalonia.

According to the Spanish government in Madrid, led by Mariano Rajoy´s Popular Party, president Mas and his two ministers committed a crime because there was an order from Spain’s Constitutional Court to stop the consultation process, which was carried out by 40,000 citizen volunteers. Francesc Homs, a former spokesman of the Catalan government who is currently a member of parliament in Madrid, has also gone on trial charged with the same crime as the former president and ministers. As if that weren't enough, the president of the Catalan Parliament, Carme Forcadell, also found out on Thursday that she will go on trial for having allowed a floor debate on committee findings regarding the possibility of Catalonia becoming a free and independent country.

If they are found guilty It will mean that the constitutional road to an Independent Catalonia may be permanently blocked unless there was a change in the Spanish Government.

If it was to happen then a successful Independence referendum in both Scotland and Catalonia could result in a domino effect in Europe as the Basque country and other current autonomous regions follow suit. Where Wales be in the line is open to question but we surly would be close to the front?

However the Spanish Government banning of a Catalonian referendum could be repeated in the UK the Tories look to be in power for decades and if this turns out to be the case and with Labour under Corbyn also hosting an Unionist ideology that the UK parliament may decide not to allow Scotland to conduct a second Independence referendum.

The question may not be whether a second Independence referendum can be one in Scotland but whether the UK government will ever allow it especially if it looks like a YES vote is likely.

Indeed I suspect that the perception was that there was no chance of the first referendum succeeding and that it would kill of Scottish Independence for decades.

If this is so then the suggestion that if the SNP were to win the majority seats in both Westminster and Holyrood next time the option may be an Unilateral Declaration of Independence UDI ( a similar move could be made in Catalonia).

Where that will lead and the response. the UK or Spanish governments could be frighting.