You need to get out of the country more - people in the far east generally work much harder than people here and for less money - that's why we have so much debt here.
That is a non sequitar.
People in Italy work less hard than we do, or people in the Far East, yet have far lower levels of debt. And people in some parts of the world - like the US (or in Japan in 1990)- work very hard, and have (or had) very high levels of debt.
It is not hard work, or lack thereof, that causes debt.
Debt is a conscious decision by people to do a 'time transfer of work', and swap the fruits of labour now, for labour in the future.
Point taken but it does not change the central point being made - too many in the UK, often encouraged by politicians, expect a lifestyle way beyond their means paid for by poorer people elsewhere.
PS Are there any popular bloggers left at the DT? Maybe they've all gone holiday together, errrr....
And here is the problem. The trade unions are not casting themselves as experts in the world of work. They’re casting themselves as experts in the world of political protest. Or, more accurately, the world of ineffective political protest. March. Achieve nothing. March again.
To be fair to Frances O’Grady, she has at least managed to get tomorrow’s protest focused on the narrow issue of pay, rather than trying to save the forests by sitting on the floor of Fortnum and Mason. But by doing so she is still demonstrating her movement’s impotence, rather than its strength.
This will have been the TUC planning meeting. “People are complaining we’re not doing enough about falling wages.” “That’s a real problem. We’re the people who are supposed to be securing better wages for our members.” “Perhaps it’s time for another rally.” “Fine. But how do we get people there? We need a big turnout or we look weak.” “We need to get the members angry. We need to talk up how bad their wages and terms and conditions are.” “Er … but I thought our job was to secure better wages and terms and conditions for them?” “It is. We’ll worry about that later.”
The moment has arrived for the progressives to bring in the cavalry. It's clear from recent polling that Labour's lead is slipping and if nothing is done we could be faced with a second Thatcheite era which would be every bit as unpleasant as the first.
Labour and it's ad agency can now see the whites of the Tory eyes so it's time fire. It need a strategy which is simple powerful and simply understood. But it needs it now. If the Tories pull away it's going to be uphill and very difficult.
That strategy needs to a total change of course, some vision of what Labour can offer in the modern world. Unlikely though when as present directed by scouse Union Leaders who want more political influence.
Labour need a total rethink become the party pro small business, for that though they need defeat and a new leader, not Burnham though!!!.
Chukka could be the man the more I hear him the more impressive he sounds. He may be the man who is strong enough to take Labour forward, in a more realistic direction.
Spare electricity capacity down to 4%, down from 17% three years ago. They are talking to businesses to get them down t reduce electricity consumption if demand outstrips supply.
If that happens, we have a crisis.
And Ed deserves a lot of the blame for signing the LCBD without ensuring there is sufficient baseload capacity to replace those plants. He really is an incompetent f'wit.
Before I go back to work, I would point out that in 1983, the Alliance got 25%, but was 19% behind the winner.
In 2015, UKIP could get 18%, and be just 12% behind the winner. This would, one would think, mean that they could do rather better.
That being said, it is equally possible, that UKIP will pile up votes in a lot of useless seconds in the North of England (against Labour), will narrowly miss out on a bunch of seats against the Libs in the South West, and will also get a lot of votes in safe Conservative seats in the South and East. In which case, you could very well be right.
Seconds are not necessarily 'useless' if you can use them as a springboard for the future.
1983 and 1987 were undoubtedly disappointing results for the Alliance but the breakthrough in votes they represented was the launchpad for the electoral breakthrough achieved in 1997-2005 once they knew where and how to concentrate that increased support.
They're also not useless if they act as pressure on the bigger parties, either to adopt or adapt policies or - the big prize - to recognise the electoral system as fundamentally broken and in need of reform.
I sincerely would like to know what tim thinks of it all. All we have these days is bobajob and smarmeron who, quite frankly and no offence, seem to be more at home on CiF.
Yes, an update on the NewsSense™ list of ways in which Osborne is going to lose the next election would be entertaining in light of his ever improving numbers
Oh tim was wrong much of the time but he was right a lot also and, critically, his was the essence of left/Lab thinking so at least we had a fast-track into their mindset.
Tim though was a Blairite and I have a feeling he knew Ed was a duffer. Talking of Blairites if Scot Lab don't choose Murphy they will deserve the fall they will undoubtedly get.
Also if they choose Murphy they will get the fall they deserve, just bigger. People will not vote Red Tories in
Are they viewed as Red Tories just because of their unionism? Are Liberal Democrats yellow Tories, for instance?
I can't see anything vaguely Tory about Labour under Ed Miliband, but perhaps Scots see it differently.
Liberals are just lying toads and irrelevant. Labour are now seen as just Red Tories from Scottish viewpoint , not a cigarette paper between them. Murphy in particular is seen as a Blairite Tory , self seeking , greedy , me me arse.
Some advice from McTernan for Slab - should they choose to take it
"The lesson? Play to your own strengths, not to your opponent’s. It’s not rocket salad, as an irate woman once said at a public meeting I attended. The SNP are busy constructing a myth that Scotland is a wildly Left-wing, working-class country. It is not. As the referendum result showed, it is a solidly middle-class, and – dare one say it – moderate Unionist country. "
Yes but as patriotic Scots they always manage to elect more than 40+ left wing Labour MP's. Referendum only showed there were lots of cowards scared to make decisions for themselves who preferred a comfort blanket or were stupid enough to believe Westminster politicians and Labour ones in particular.
Before I go back to work, I would point out that in 1983, the Alliance got 25%, but was 19% behind the winner.
In 2015, UKIP could get 18%, and be just 12% behind the winner. This would, one would think, mean that they could do rather better.
That being said, it is equally possible, that UKIP will pile up votes in a lot of useless seconds in the North of England (against Labour), will narrowly miss out on a bunch of seats against the Libs in the South West, and will also get a lot of votes in safe Conservative seats in the South and East. In which case, you could very well be right.
Seconds are not necessarily 'useless' if you can use them as a springboard for the future.
1983 and 1987 were undoubtedly disappointing results for the Alliance but the breakthrough in votes they represented was the launchpad for the electoral breakthrough achieved in 1997-2005 once they knew where and how to concentrate that increased support.
They're also not useless if they act as pressure on the bigger parties, either to adopt or adapt policies or - the big prize - to recognise the electoral system as fundamentally broken and in need of reform.
Also come in useful for Euro elections and that prized referendum.
Does Ed have any cheerleaders left? Most supporters/commentators are eerily quiet or actively hostile these days.
How could Ed have any supporters or cheerleaders left? He is not good at what he does and he is a significant drag on Labour, not only personally but also as a consequence of his piss poor leadership. He has spent four years pursuing a strategy of Save the NHS and We Are Not The Tories. It's epically, epochally bad. I don't think a major party in the UK has had a worst leader in my lifetime, which began 50 years ago.
It's not even We Are Not The Tories but the constant flipflopping between We Are Not The Evil Nasty People and We Would Not Do That Much Different Anyway.
"but ... but ... but ... I care more" seems to be all he's got in his locker.
Spare electricity capacity down to 4%, down from 17% three years ago. They are talking to businesses to get them down t reduce electricity consumption if demand outstrips supply.
If that happens, we have a crisis.
And Ed deserves a lot of the blame for signing the LCBD without ensuring there is sufficient baseload capacity to replace those plants. He really is an incompetent f'wit.
We had to reduce energy consumption quite quickly in Japan a couple of years back due to an issue involving some diesel generators - it turns out you can apply O'Rourke's Law Of Circumcision to the demand side.
Interesting meme shift on political betting the last few days. Mike et. al. now talking about 'how' the Conservatives can, or cannot, win. This is the first time in several years as previously the idea has tended to be dismissed out of hand.
Regardless I'd the merits of the case, if Ed has no cheerleaders then he has a serious problem as we move towards the campaign. Brown and Cameron have always had people prepare to go into bat on their behalf.
Ed and the shadow cabinet can't do all the work. You can't support yourself.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by that and other nonsense like dog licenses for journalists from that infamous conference when the video feed committed suicide during Ed's speech.
The collective drip-drip must have had an effect. Hacks move about from one paper to another and will have had many friends hurt or bruised by Leveson.
Is there a MSM commentator actively cheerleading for Ed?
Polly Toynbee and Mary Riddell seem the friendliest towards him. The almost uniform lack of enthusiasm of the commentariat is striking.
I do wonder if it is because of his Leveson stance that all the hacks seem to dislike him ? And the fact that more than a good few of them are very Blairite.
I get the feeling Peter Hitchens dislikes Cameron far more than Ed too.
While some NHS staff were on strike last week because their 3% increment was not supplemented with a 1% additional pay rise. When will the public sector join the real world?
Mr. Jessop, the Coalition also has not done enough on energy, but I agree entirely that Miliband was an utter incompetent as Energy Secretary.
Edited extra bit: bitte sehr, Herr Briskin.
That's my view as well - the coalition could have done more. But it takes time to open new plants, and the coalition have been trying - witness the ponderous planning progress of new nuclear plants.
The LCPD tied their hands behind their back wrt keeping old plants open. It's odd that Germany, with a very powerful Green lobby and political party - has been able to build lots of new coal-fired power stations, whereas we have not.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by that and other nonsense like dog licenses for journalists from that infamous conference when the video feed committed suicide during Ed's speech.
The collective drip-drip must have had an effect. Hacks move about from one paper to another and will have had many friends hurt or bruised by Leveson.
Is there a MSM commentator actively cheerleading for Ed?
Polly Toynbee and Mary Riddell seem the friendliest towards him. The almost uniform lack of enthusiasm of the commentariat is striking.
I do wonder if it is because of his Leveson stance that all the hacks seem to dislike him ? And the fact that more than a good few of them are very Blairite.
I get the feeling Peter Hitchens dislikes Cameron far more than Ed too.
Mr. Jessop, it's crackers. I read (a year or two ago) we'd been using more energy from coal-fired power stations than expected, and because of bonkers euro-regulation that meant we had to decommission them sooner.
It's the energy equivalent of rewarding economic failure with rebates.
Oh...
Edited extra bit: licence*. It only takes an S (like practice) if you're using it as a verb. Or you're an American.
I sincerely would like to know what tim thinks of it all. All we have these days is bobajob and smarmeron who, quite frankly and no offence, seem to be more at home on CiF.
Yes, an update on the NewsSense™ list of ways in which Osborne is going to lose the next election would be entertaining in light of his ever improving numbers
Oh tim was wrong much of the time but he was right a lot also and, critically, his was the essence of left/Lab thinking so at least we had a fast-track into their mindset.
Tim though was a Blairite and I have a feeling he knew Ed was a duffer. Talking of Blairites if Scot Lab don't choose Murphy they will deserve the fall they will undoubtedly get.
Also if they choose Murphy they will get the fall they deserve, just bigger. People will not vote Red Tories in
Are they viewed as Red Tories just because of their unionism? Are Liberal Democrats yellow Tories, for instance?
I can't see anything vaguely Tory about Labour under Ed Miliband, but perhaps Scots see it differently.
Liberals are just lying toads and irrelevant. Labour are now seen as just Red Tories from Scottish viewpoint , not a cigarette paper between them. Murphy in particular is seen as a Blairite Tory , self seeking , greedy , me me arse.
Some advice from McTernan for Slab - should they choose to take it
"The lesson? Play to your own strengths, not to your opponent’s. It’s not rocket salad, as an irate woman once said at a public meeting I attended. The SNP are busy constructing a myth that Scotland is a wildly Left-wing, working-class country. It is not. As the referendum result showed, it is a solidly middle-class, and – dare one say it – moderate Unionist country. "
stupid enough to believe Westminster politicians and Labour ones in particular.
But not as stupid as those who believed in a plan built on $110/barrel oil........
I wouldn't be at all surprised by that and other nonsense like dog licenses for journalists from that infamous conference when the video feed committed suicide during Ed's speech.
The collective drip-drip must have had an effect. Hacks move about from one paper to another and will have had many friends hurt or bruised by Leveson.
Is there a MSM commentator actively cheerleading for Ed?
Polly Toynbee and Mary Riddell seem the friendliest towards him. The almost uniform lack of enthusiasm of the commentariat is striking.
I do wonder if it is because of his Leveson stance that all the hacks seem to dislike him ? And the fact that more than a good few of them are very Blairite.
I get the feeling Peter Hitchens dislikes Cameron far more than Ed too.
Spare electricity capacity down to 4%, down from 17% three years ago. They are talking to businesses to get them down t reduce electricity consumption if demand outstrips supply.
If that happens, we have a crisis.
And Ed deserves a lot of the blame for signing the LCBD without ensuring there is sufficient baseload capacity to replace those plants. He really is an incompetent f'wit.
We had to reduce energy consumption quite quickly in Japan a couple of years back due to an issue involving some diesel generators - it turns out you can apply O'Rourke's Law Of Circumcision to the demand side.
That was very unusual circumstances. The political consequences of this over here will be severe.
Seconds are not necessarily 'useless' if you can use them as a springboard for the future.
1983 and 1987 were undoubtedly disappointing results for the Alliance but the breakthrough in votes they represented was the launchpad for the electoral breakthrough achieved in 1997-2005 once they knew where and how to concentrate that increased support.
They're also not useless if they act as pressure on the bigger parties, either to adopt or adapt policies or - the big prize - to recognise the electoral system as fundamentally broken and in need of reform.
Strangely enough, the bulk of the LD seat breakthrough in 1997 fell into two categories - areas of existing local Government strength (places like Cheltenham, the Sutton seats) or areas of historical strength (Cornwall, Hereford) where the local Govenrment base was diluted by Independents.
UKIP have areas of local Government strength built up from election wins and defections and these are the obvious targets for 2015. There will be areas where they may not have much on-ground strength but will do well and, as you say, these would be the next stage seats.
In the case of the LDs, seats like Guildford and Teignmouth were won after 1997 as the Party moved resources into the next level of seats.
To weaken Rcs's analogy further, the LDs finished 23% behind the winners in 1997 and won 46 seats. In a 30-30-20-10 election (that's Con-Lab-UKIP-LD) the vote distribution will be absolutely critical and that's the conundrum. We know (or strongly suspect) UKIP won't win a seat in London but there are other egions where it's much less clear.
If I had to contrast Tony with EdM - given I voted for the former, I'd say it's about *vision* and EdM doesn't have any.
Your 'vacant stare' is a great phrase - he reminds me a lot of people I knew professionally who talked a lot and said nothing. And it often got them quite far - until the chips were down.
This seems to be the epiphany point of his conference speech. it said everything and nothing. In some places literally so. The Emperor had no clothes and we could all see it.
I tend to agree with BenM's observation. Most of my Labour supporting friends went from stoic to seriously depressed after the Conference speech. It really was a turning point in a way that these things rarely are. Very few actually watched the speech of course but the theme of the man who forgot the deficit entered the mainstream.
For me, it simply emphasised and confirmed something that was pretty obvious to people like me who spend far too long looking at the minutiae of politics: this man has nothing useful to say about the problems the UK faces, the challenges of the next 5 years and no program or plan for government at all. The blank sheet has become the vacant stare. I have no idea how Labour fixes this but on current trends they are in real trouble.
Does Ed have any cheerleaders left? Most supporters/commentators are eerily quiet or actively hostile these days.
How could Ed have any supporters or cheerleaders left? He is not good at what he does and he is a significant drag on Labour, not only personally but also as a consequence of his piss poor leadership. He has spent four years pursuing a strategy of Save the NHS and We Are Not The Tories. It's epically, epochally bad. I don't think a major party in the UK has had a worst leader in my lifetime, which began 50 years ago.
It's not even We Are Not The Tories but the constant flipflopping between We Are Not The Evil Nasty People and We Would Not Do That Much Different Anyway.
"but ... but ... but ... I care more" seems to be all he's got in his locker.
"The blank sheet has become the vacant stare."
from elsewhere in the thread is far sharper than anything I could write.
I sincerely would like to know what tim thinks of it all. All we have these days is bobajob and smarmeron who, quite frankly and no offence, seem to be more at home on CiF.
Yes, an update on the NewsSense™ list of ways in which Osborne is going to lose the next election would be entertaining in light of his ever improving numbers
Oh tim was wrong much of the time but he was right a lot also and, critically, his was the essence of left/Lab thinking so at least we had a fast-track into their mindset.
Tim though was a Blairite and I have a feeling he knew Ed was a duffer. Talking of Blairites if Scot Lab don't choose Murphy they will deserve the fall they will undoubtedly get.
Also if they choose Murphy they will get the fall they deserve, just bigger. People will not vote Red Tories in
Are they viewed as Red Tories just because of their unionism? Are Liberal Democrats yellow Tories, for instance?
I can't see anything vaguely Tory about Labour under Ed Miliband, but perhaps Scots see it differently.
Liberals are just lying toads and irrelevant. Labour are now seen as just Red Tories from Scottish viewpoint , not a cigarette paper between them. Murphy in particular is seen as a Blairite Tory , self seeking , greedy , me me arse.
Some advice from McTernan for Slab - should they choose to take it
"The lesson? Play to your own strengths, not to your opponent’s. It’s not rocket salad, as an irate woman once said at a public meeting I attended. The SNP are busy constructing a myth that Scotland is a wildly Left-wing, working-class country. It is not. As the referendum result showed, it is a solidly middle-class, and – dare one say it – moderate Unionist country. "
stupid enough to believe Westminster politicians and Labour ones in particular.
But not as stupid as those who believed in a plan built on $110/barrel oil........
And Art. They could have used the oil to burn the paintings. The circle of life so to speak.
If I had to contrast Tony with EdM - given I voted for the former, I'd say it's about *vision* and EdM doesn't have any.
Your 'vacant stare' is a great phrase - he reminds me a lot of people I knew professionally who talked a lot and said nothing. And it often got them quite far - until the chips were down.
This seems to be the epiphany point of his conference speech. it said everything and nothing. In some places literally so. The Emperor had no clothes and we could all see it.
I tend to agree with BenM's observation. Most of my Labour supporting friends went from stoic to seriously depressed after the Conference speech. It really was a turning point in a way that these things rarely are. Very few actually watched the speech of course but the theme of the man who forgot the deficit entered the mainstream.
For me, it simply emphasised and confirmed something that was pretty obvious to people like me who spend far too long looking at the minutiae of politics: this man has nothing useful to say about the problems the UK faces, the challenges of the next 5 years and no program or plan for government at all. The blank sheet has become the vacant stare. I have no idea how Labour fixes this but on current trends they are in real trouble.
I've always thought both Milibands were over-promoted sixth formers - the power of family connection in Labour over genuine talent.
Spare electricity capacity down to 4%, down from 17% three years ago. They are talking to businesses to get them down t reduce electricity consumption if demand outstrips supply.
If that happens, we have a crisis.
And Ed deserves a lot of the blame for signing the LCBD without ensuring there is sufficient baseload capacity to replace those plants. He really is an incompetent f'wit.
We had to reduce energy consumption quite quickly in Japan a couple of years back due to an issue involving some diesel generators - it turns out you can apply O'Rourke's Law Of Circumcision to the demand side.
Electric light makes up approx 15% of consumption apparently file:///C:/Users/Chris/Downloads/Powering+the+nation+report+CO332.pdf switching to LEDs could save 80% or 90% of that, say 12%. Should be worth a power station or two and probably cheaper.
Mr. Jessop, it's crackers. I read (a year or two ago) we'd been using more energy from coal-fired power stations than expected, and because of bonkers euro-regulation that meant we had to decommission them sooner.
It's the energy equivalent of rewarding economic failure with rebates.
Oh...
Edited extra bit: licence*. It only takes an S (like practice) if you're using it as a verb. Or you're an American.
Energy policy is and has been a joke in this country since they sold off the CEGB. I have no qualms with private sector distribution, but it strikes me that the only way to get a sensible long term strategy to generation is to re-nationalise.
The amount we're paying to subsidise the new nuclear capacity and the agreed "strike price" show this is pointless left to the private sector.
I sincerely would like to know what tim thinks of it all. All we have these days is bobajob and smarmeron who, quite frankly and no offence, seem to be more at home on CiF.
Yes, an update on the NewsSense™ list of ways in which Osborne is going to lose the next election would be entertaining in light of his ever improving numbers
Oh tim was wrong much of the time but he was right a lot also and, critically, his was the essence of left/Lab thinking so at least we had a fast-track into their mindset.
Tim though was a Blairite and I have a feeling he knew Ed was a duffer. Talking of Blairites if Scot Lab don't choose Murphy they will deserve the fall they will undoubtedly get.
Also if they choose Murphy they will get the fall they deserve, just bigger. People will not vote Red Tories in
Are they viewed as Red Tories just because of their unionism? Are Liberal Democrats yellow Tories, for instance?
I can't see anything vaguely Tory about Labour under Ed Miliband, but perhaps Scots see it differently.
Liberals are just lying toads and irrelevant. Labour are now seen as just Red Tories from Scottish viewpoint , not a cigarette paper between them. Murphy in particular is seen as a Blairite Tory , self seeking , greedy , me me arse.
Thanks. So are you saying the policy position of Scottish Labour is perceived to be virtually the same as the Scottish Tories, in Scotland?
I understand the strong views on Murphy, although I don't agree with them, but he's just one man so where does that broader perception come from?
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Australia has cut immigration to zero by boat by simply not accepting them. Abbott also managed to win a majority.
- PR is about influencing others [authority figures] to talk positively about you/inspiring confidence/winning friends/credibilty - it's a long game, but you can get a quick hit/massive loss. It's more like Branding which is another specialism. Branding is about defining who and what you want others to believe about you as core values. If you've ever done a YouGov poll you'll have noticed how many questions are actually about your perceptions of a brand.
- Advertising is direct to the end user and encouraging them to buy your stuff/come to your gig whatever. It's important to building brands as *examples* of their values - an advert for a car is selling you a load of things all at the same time such as a lifestyle you aspire to or have and want to peacock. It also paves the way for market entrants/new products to build awareness about the other things they want to tell you [this is where Branding and PR come in].
Then there's Marketing - which is more about packaging and promotion an offer to specific segments in an appealing way/using the right motivators and language - including internal staff communications. That's all about selling the value of an employer to its own payroll/delivering bad news in the least bruising way.
Then there's Promotions, Hospitality, Endorsements and Corporate Responsibility which deal separately with flattery/inducement/rewarding loyalty/being nice guys. And also bleeds into the whole PR/Brand thing as what you choose to endorse says everything about what you want to be associated with/gain from reflected glory.
As a profession, it's often all lumped dismissively under *spin* or *slick salesman* or *logo* which just misses the whole point of how very sophisticated it is.
When I was there - BT employed over 2000 people to do these jobs. It's a serious business, that breaks or makes them.
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Better still have a repatriation centre on Rockall - those caught can stay there until they decide where they want to go.
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Isn't Calais and the Med at opposite ends?
Yes, but what's your point? We should just pick anyone on the way to Europe, or who we pick up here, to North Africa for determining their application. They should learn that they can't just get here and then be put up in a nice hotel, so won't try making a dangerous crossing.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
How is that strategy doing now? for the LDs.
Operating in reverse. Local government losses are going to be converted into Westminster losses.
Your 'vacant stare' is a great phrase - he reminds me a lot of people I knew professionally who talked a lot and said nothing. And it often got them quite far - until the chips were down.
But your Pot Noodle comparison is gold also... a "food" that is only desirable after large amounts of lager, but you always regret later, is so much like the UK flirtation with Labour, particularly when Ed represents the weirder end of the product range...
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Isn't Calais and the Med at opposite ends?
Yes, but what's your point? We should just pick anyone on the way to Europe, or who we pick up here, to North Africa for determining their application. They should learn that they can't just get here and then be put up in a nice hotel, so won't try making a dangerous crossing.
Well I guess my point is that this is not really a british located problem. Harsh as the conditions may look on Tv - and your goading - I honestly think Dave and Ed M should not have this prob at the top of their priorities.
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Isn't Calais and the Med at opposite ends?
Yes, but what's your point? We should just pick anyone on the way to Europe, or who we pick up here, to North Africa for determining their application. They should learn that they can't just get here and then be put up in a nice hotel, so won't try making a dangerous crossing.
Well I guess my point is that this is not really a british located problem. Harsh as the conditions may look on Tv - and your goading - I honestly think Dave and Ed M should not have this prob at the top of their priorities.
"Goading"? There's no goading. I'm trying to suggest a solution which would save lives. We could also take the illegal immigrants that get here somewhere without them distributing into the rest of society.
Regarding illegal immigrants in the Med, why don't we just set up a processing centre in North Africa and then just take any immigrants in trouble at sea, or who we pick it up in Calais, there? That would discourage them from making the trip.
Isn't Calais and the Med at opposite ends?
Yes, but what's your point? We should just pick anyone on the way to Europe, or who we pick up here, to North Africa for determining their application. They should learn that they can't just get here and then be put up in a nice hotel, so won't try making a dangerous crossing.
Well I guess my point is that this is not really a british located problem. Harsh as the conditions may look on Tv - and your goading - I honestly think Dave and Ed M should not have this prob at the top of their priorities.
"Goading"? There's no goading. I'm trying to suggest a solution which would save lives. We could also take the illegal immigrants that get here somewhere without them distributing into the rest of society.
You need to get out of the country more - people in the far east generally work much harder than people here and for less money - that's why we have so much debt here.
That is a non sequitar.
People in Italy work less hard than we do, or people in the Far East, yet have far lower levels of debt. And people in some parts of the world - like the US (or in Japan in 1990)- work very hard, and have (or had) very high levels of debt.
It is not hard work, or lack thereof, that causes debt.
Debt is a conscious decision by people to do a 'time transfer of work', and swap the fruits of labour now, for labour in the future.
Point taken but it does not change the central point being made - too many in the UK, often encouraged by politicians, expect a lifestyle way beyond their means paid for by poorer people elsewhere.
I agree 100%.
And the crazy bit is... not working is very bad for you. Not just financially - but also for your happiness and health. Humans are meant to have routines, and even people in the most low-end, dead-end jobs report they are happier than those who are unemployed.
We need to make the incentives work for working. In the US (and certain parts of Europe), unemployment payments work differently: you get more when you first lose your job, but it drops off very rapidly. The incentive to find work is greater there than in the UK, where benefits (although not particularly generous) stretch on without end. We also need to make sure that people in school realise that leaving without skills makes it hard to have a decent standard of living. (You can't solely blame the teachers: I remember large chunks of my school had no interest in being there.) I continue to believe the best way to do that is to make sure that all benefits require a minimum amount of NI contributions. Leave school? You need to get a job.
This will - of course - make the UK less attractive for immigrants from Eastern Europe and beyond. One of the reasons why people come to the UK is because there are plenty of (admittedly low paying) jobs available, and there seem to be many Brits who don't want to do them. (The London unemployment rate is 7.2% - yet the people serving me at Pret are not British. And Pret pays well above minimum wage, so it can't simply be that immigrants have driven pay down.)
If Brits were doing these jobs, the would be happier and healthier, we would have less pressure on services due to immigration, we would preserve our fundamental freedoms, and we would pay less in benefits.
About a dozen men have just been arrested in Southern Manchester for child grooming offences.
I have absolutely no information beyond that, but does anyone want to bet on their ethnicity? Given that I'm constantly told people of all backgrounds do this sort of thing, and there's no ethnic dimension to it, the vast likelihood is that they are white based on the demographics of Manchester. I'm happy to take bets that they are white at evens. Any takers?
I've long given Ed the benefit of the doubt. He was a rather uncharismatic technocrat. However I'm starting to think he isn't. He appears to treat politics as if it's all a morality play. Does he belong in the Church of England? They accept atheist bishops nowadays and isn't Ed's PR man ex of Rowan Williams' office. I've always felt the Labour party was a quasi religious movement - one reason I wanted a new centre left party to break the mould of British politics. Unfortunately Nick Clegg had other ideas.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
I do, however, think that several Labour posters on here are showing the way for next May - Ed Miliband will oversee a large loss of votes to the Can't Be Arsed Party. I was a lone voice for a long time suggesting that Ed Miliband could well see a lower vote share than 2010. Gordon at least had some things to sell to the electorate. His claim to have saved the world may have seemed preposterous to most, but some bought that line and voted accordingly. Ed's Labour has nothing to offer on the economy. That will bleed some votes away, some to other parties, mostly to stay at homes.
I sincerely would like to know what tim thinks of it all. All we have these days is bobajob and smarmeron who, quite frankly and no offence, seem to be more at home on CiF.
Yes, an update on the NewsSense™ list of ways in which Osborne is going to lose the next election would be entertaining in light of his ever improving numbers
Oh tim was wrong much of the time but he was right a lot also and, critically, his was the essence of left/Lab thinking so at least we had a fast-track into their mindset.
Tim though was a Blairite and I have a feeling he knew Ed was a duffer. Talking of Blairites if Scot Lab don't choose Murphy they will deserve the fall they will undoubtedly get.
Also if they choose Murphy they will get the fall they deserve, just bigger. People will not vote Red Tories in
Are they viewed as Red Tories just because of their unionism? Are Liberal Democrats yellow Tories, for instance?
I can't see anything vaguely Tory about Labour under Ed Miliband, but perhaps Scots see it differently.
Liberals are just lying toads and irrelevant. Labour are now seen as just Red Tories from Scottish viewpoint , not a cigarette paper between them. Murphy in particular is seen as a Blairite Tory , self seeking , greedy , me me arse.
Some advice from McTernan for Slab - should they choose to take it
"The lesson? Play to your own strengths, not to your opponent’s. It’s not rocket salad, as an irate woman once said at a public meeting I attended. The SNP are busy constructing a myth that Scotland is a wildly Left-wing, working-class country. It is not. As the referendum result showed, it is a solidly middle-class, and – dare one say it – moderate Unionist country. "
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
According to the pollsters, UKIP's support is higher now than in May 2013/4.
Just remember that it looked very touch and go for a while. I had resigned myself to losing Scotland as part of the UK.
Oh, indeed, but I am not talking about those like SeanT who got the collywobbles when the polling tightened. I am referring to the fanatics who screamed Turnip every time it was suggested that the Sainted Eck might not in fact deliver them to the Promised Land come the Rapture...
Their new meme is Labour will be punished for winning.
Mr. Jessop, it's crackers. I read (a year or two ago) we'd been using more energy from coal-fired power stations than expected, and because of bonkers euro-regulation that meant we had to decommission them sooner.
It's the energy equivalent of rewarding economic failure with rebates.
Oh...
Edited extra bit: licence*. It only takes an S (like practice) if you're using it as a verb. Or you're an American.
Miss Plato, pre-prepared is bloody awful, but that's a Brownism. The worst Americanism is probably "I could care less". It sounds like someone who's intellectually subnormal attempting to be sarcastic.
Most American terms don't really bother me much, but that one grates.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
According to the pollsters, UKIP's support is higher now than in May 2013/4.
We'll see how UKIP's vote holds up. As I have pointed out before, Clacton was their equivalent of a "conference bounce".* Normality may yet be a few points lower. It depends whether they keep eating into Labour's WWC vote...
*Someone may need to tell Ed Miliband what a conference bounce is....
I'd say that Sales is about targeting what Marketing handed to you in the most effective way - and currying favour/trust with the target audience. Marketing are the tools to do the job, but you need a tradesman to do the work on site.
Sales IMO is a much closer bedfellow to Marketing than Advertising or PR or any of the other disciplines. Crap offers and promotions can't be overcome by the best salesperson or PR bod or Ad Exec.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
I do, however, think that several Labour posters on here are showing the way for next May - Ed Miliband will oversee a large loss of votes to the Can't Be Arsed Party. I was a lone voice for a long time suggesting that Ed Miliband could well see a lower vote share than 2010. Gordon at least had some things to sell to the electorate. His claim to have saved the world may have seemed preposterous to most, but some bought that line and voted accordingly. Ed's Labour has nothing to offer on the economy. That will bleed some votes away, some to other parties, mostly to stay at homes.
That may well happen. If so, turnout will fall even lower in seats, some of which are already sub-50%. That's heading down towards local election turnout and makes big swings easier to achieve as you quite simply don't need as many votes to do it and could cause some apparently safe seats to be vulnerable.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
According to the pollsters, UKIP's support is higher now than in May 2013/4.
We'll see how UKIP's vote holds up. As I have pointed out before, Clacton was their equivalent of a "conference bounce".* Normality may yet be a few points lower. It depends whether they keep eating into Labour's WWC vote...
*Someone may need to tell Ed Miliband what a conference bounce is....
So the labour areas that Ukip did v well in the locals...
Ukip vote hold up or labour bounce back? You seem to say neither are likely
While you're about, can you confirm whether or not Roger and I are still not to interact with each other? There's been a couple of occasions since that ban where Roger has insulted me and I haven't responded. It would be good to know one way or another: either he should face consequences for breaking the ban, or I should be allowed to defend myself against him.
On looked touch and go only when Rupert Murdoch began hyping what was an outlier
Maybe to you it looked more certain, but with only a few percent between YES and NO and all the uncertainties of demographics in the polling, it looked very touch and go to me.
While you're about, can you confirm whether or not Roger and I are still not to interact with each other? There's been a couple of occasions since that ban where Roger has insulted me and I haven't responded. It would be good to know one way or another: either he should face consequences for breaking the ban, or I should be allowed to defend myself against him.
It is still in place, if he violates it again, appropriate action will be taken.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
According to the pollsters, UKIP's support is higher now than in May 2013/4.
We'll see how UKIP's vote holds up. As I have pointed out before, Clacton was their equivalent of a "conference bounce".* Normality may yet be a few points lower. It depends whether they keep eating into Labour's WWC vote...
*Someone may need to tell Ed Miliband what a conference bounce is....
So the labour areas that Ukip did v well in the locals...
Ukip vote hold up or labour bounce back? You seem to say neither are likely
And that way lies the route to Tory victory next May.....
UKIP --> back to Tory (fear of PM Ed Miliband)
Labour --> some to UKIP (fear of PM Ed Miliband), some to Can't Be Arsed Party (underwhelmed by the idea of PM Ed Miliband)
Your 'vacant stare' is a great phrase - he reminds me a lot of people I knew professionally who talked a lot and said nothing. And it often got them quite far - until the chips were down.
But your Pot Noodle comparison is gold also... a "food" that is only desirable after large amounts of lager, but you always regret later, is so much like the UK flirtation with Labour, particularly when Ed represents the weirder end of the product range...
While you're about, can you confirm whether or not Roger and I are still not to interact with each other? There's been a couple of occasions since that ban where Roger has insulted me and I haven't responded. It would be good to know one way or another: either he should face consequences for breaking the ban, or I should be allowed to defend myself against him.
It is still in place, if he violates it again, appropriate action will be taken.
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
According to the pollsters, UKIP's support is higher now than in May 2013/4.
We'll see how UKIP's vote holds up. As I have pointed out before, Clacton was their equivalent of a "conference bounce".* Normality may yet be a few points lower. It depends whether they keep eating into Labour's WWC vote...
*Someone may need to tell Ed Miliband what a conference bounce is....
Known unknowns:
This Thursday: South Yorks PCC election Nov 20: Rochester by-election
If UKIP can produce wins in these, it will keep their momentum rolling into the new year. If they can't then yes, I'd expect a drift down.
As an aside, I checked the S Yorks Euro-election results from this May. Labour outpolled UKIP by only a little over 1% of the vote. Turnout on Thursday can, however, be expected to be at best half what it was then. Question is (or questions are): who is most motivated to turn out, how much of UKIP's support is EU-specific, and how will the transfers go under SV?
In the 2013 (22% NEV), and 2014 (18% NEV) local elections UKIP's vote was concentrated enough for them to 'win' Westminster seats.
But not on General Election turnouts. This is where UKIP are hopelessly optimistic citing Westminster seats they would have "won".
The point is UKIP's support is not uniformly distributed, so they can win Westminster seats.
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
The big winners of local elections are the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
According to the pollsters, UKIP's support is higher now than in May 2013/4.
We'll see how UKIP's vote holds up. As I have pointed out before, Clacton was their equivalent of a "conference bounce".* Normality may yet be a few points lower. It depends whether they keep eating into Labour's WWC vote...
*Someone may need to tell Ed Miliband what a conference bounce is....
So the labour areas that Ukip did v well in the locals...
Ukip vote hold up or labour bounce back? You seem to say neither are likely
And that way lies the route to Tory victory next May.....
UKIP --> back to Tory (fear of PM Ed Miliband)
Labour --> some to UKIP (fear of PM Ed Miliband), some to Can't Be Arsed Party (underwhelmed by the idea of PM Ed Miliband)
Can't say I am surprised you drew that conclusion!
A nicer news story, the 'British Schindler' is to receive the highest honour in the Czech Republic today for his efforts saving children from the Nazis before WWII kicked off: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29798434
Edited extra bit: thwarted, beaten by Dr. Spyn by a few minutes!
Comments
PS Are there any popular bloggers left at the DT? Maybe they've all gone holiday together, errrr....
Anyway - I genuinely do struggle with the marketing concept.
Yet another episode in the saga that is energy security:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29794632
Spare electricity capacity down to 4%, down from 17% three years ago. They are talking to businesses to get them down t reduce electricity consumption if demand outstrips supply.
If that happens, we have a crisis.
And Ed deserves a lot of the blame for signing the LCBD without ensuring there is sufficient baseload capacity to replace those plants. He really is an incompetent f'wit.
1983 and 1987 were undoubtedly disappointing results for the Alliance but the breakthrough in votes they represented was the launchpad for the electoral breakthrough achieved in 1997-2005 once they knew where and how to concentrate that increased support.
They're also not useless if they act as pressure on the bigger parties, either to adopt or adapt policies or - the big prize - to recognise the electoral system as fundamentally broken and in need of reform.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141027/debtext/141027-0004.htm#1410281000683
Edited extra bit: bitte sehr, Herr Briskin.
He may have done but isn't their something in the bible about the repentant sinner?
Yet again another wrong call by Labour on the house price boom. Short-term tactics and sound bites - 40/35/30% strategy anyone?
Ed and the shadow cabinet can't do all the work. You can't support yourself.
The collective drip-drip must have had an effect. Hacks move about from one paper to another and will have had many friends hurt or bruised by Leveson.
The LCPD tied their hands behind their back wrt keeping old plants open. It's odd that Germany, with a very powerful Green lobby and political party - has been able to build lots of new coal-fired power stations, whereas we have not.
Mr. Jessop, it's crackers. I read (a year or two ago) we'd been using more energy from coal-fired power stations than expected, and because of bonkers euro-regulation that meant we had to decommission them sooner.
It's the energy equivalent of rewarding economic failure with rebates.
Oh...
Edited extra bit: licence*. It only takes an S (like practice) if you're using it as a verb. Or you're an American.
UKIP have areas of local Government strength built up from election wins and defections and these are the obvious targets for 2015. There will be areas where they may not have much on-ground strength but will do well and, as you say, these would be the next stage seats.
In the case of the LDs, seats like Guildford and Teignmouth were won after 1997 as the Party moved resources into the next level of seats.
To weaken Rcs's analogy further, the LDs finished 23% behind the winners in 1997 and won 46 seats. In a 30-30-20-10 election (that's Con-Lab-UKIP-LD) the vote distribution will be absolutely critical and that's the conundrum. We know (or strongly suspect) UKIP won't win a seat in London but there are other egions where it's much less clear.
Your 'vacant stare' is a great phrase - he reminds me a lot of people I knew professionally who talked a lot and said nothing. And it often got them quite far - until the chips were down.
This seems to be the epiphany point of his conference speech. it said everything and nothing. In some places literally so. The Emperor had no clothes and we could all see it.
from elsewhere in the thread is far sharper than anything I could write.
Marketing is having what you can get rid of.
...
The amount we're paying to subsidise the new nuclear capacity and the agreed "strike price" show this is pointless left to the private sector.
I understand the strong views on Murphy, although I don't agree with them, but he's just one man so where does that broader perception come from?
I don't think UKIP/UKIP supporters are being hopelessly optimistic in thinking that local government wins can be converted into Westminster wins. That was the successful strategy followed by Paddy Ashdown.
LATEST:The so-called "naked rambler" Stephen Gough loses his case at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
- PR is about influencing others [authority figures] to talk positively about you/inspiring confidence/winning friends/credibilty - it's a long game, but you can get a quick hit/massive loss. It's more like Branding which is another specialism. Branding is about defining who and what you want others to believe about you as core values. If you've ever done a YouGov poll you'll have noticed how many questions are actually about your perceptions of a brand.
- Advertising is direct to the end user and encouraging them to buy your stuff/come to your gig whatever. It's important to building brands as *examples* of their values - an advert for a car is selling you a load of things all at the same time such as a lifestyle you aspire to or have and want to peacock. It also paves the way for market entrants/new products to build awareness about the other things they want to tell you [this is where Branding and PR come in].
Then there's Marketing - which is more about packaging and promotion an offer to specific segments in an appealing way/using the right motivators and language - including internal staff communications. That's all about selling the value of an employer to its own payroll/delivering bad news in the least bruising way.
Then there's Promotions, Hospitality, Endorsements and Corporate Responsibility which deal separately with flattery/inducement/rewarding loyalty/being nice guys. And also bleeds into the whole PR/Brand thing as what you choose to endorse says everything about what you want to be associated with/gain from reflected glory.
As a profession, it's often all lumped dismissively under *spin* or *slick salesman* or *logo* which just misses the whole point of how very sophisticated it is.
When I was there - BT employed over 2000 people to do these jobs. It's a serious business, that breaks or makes them.
FTR - Yes, I am waiting for my Daily politics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5045154/Can-Ed-Miliband-stop-the-lights-going-out.html
He is not fit, to shovel...
Anyway, we shall see in a few months.
Whether they will deign to bother for a Westmonster election when Indy will be unilaterally announced in 2016 we shall see.
This from the same people who confidently predicted the wrong result for a year...
@DPJHodges: Weird thing about collapsing Labour poll lead is anyone who's pointed to it over the last 2 years has been told they're making it up.
@DPJHodges: Actually, there are some Labour supporters - (David Blanchflower springs to mind) - who would still deny Labour's lead has collapsed.
And the crazy bit is... not working is very bad for you. Not just financially - but also for your happiness and health. Humans are meant to have routines, and even people in the most low-end, dead-end jobs report they are happier than those who are unemployed.
We need to make the incentives work for working. In the US (and certain parts of Europe), unemployment payments work differently: you get more when you first lose your job, but it drops off very rapidly. The incentive to find work is greater there than in the UK, where benefits (although not particularly generous) stretch on without end. We also need to make sure that people in school realise that leaving without skills makes it hard to have a decent standard of living. (You can't solely blame the teachers: I remember large chunks of my school had no interest in being there.) I continue to believe the best way to do that is to make sure that all benefits require a minimum amount of NI contributions. Leave school? You need to get a job.
This will - of course - make the UK less attractive for immigrants from Eastern Europe and beyond. One of the reasons why people come to the UK is because there are plenty of (admittedly low paying) jobs available, and there seem to be many Brits who don't want to do them. (The London unemployment rate is 7.2% - yet the people serving me at Pret are not British. And Pret pays well above minimum wage, so it can't simply be that immigrants have driven pay down.)
If Brits were doing these jobs, the would be happier and healthier, we would have less pressure on services due to immigration, we would preserve our fundamental freedoms, and we would pay less in benefits.
What's not to like?
The next biggest winners are the Poke Someone In The Eye Party, formerly known as the LibDems but now sporting UKIP purple. In some ways, voting in the locals is like shagging the au pair - it might be fun at the time, and she has high hopes for your life together. But in reality, are you going to leave the wife for her?
Locals are some guide to General form, but only in a limited way.
I do, however, think that several Labour posters on here are showing the way for next May - Ed Miliband will oversee a large loss of votes to the Can't Be Arsed Party. I was a lone voice for a long time suggesting that Ed Miliband could well see a lower vote share than 2010. Gordon at least had some things to sell to the electorate. His claim to have saved the world may have seemed preposterous to most, but some bought that line and voted accordingly. Ed's Labour has nothing to offer on the economy. That will bleed some votes away, some to other parties, mostly to stay at homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
Their new meme is Labour will be punished for winning.
Will they be 2 for 2?
Then again, I rail against using *impact* as a verb URGH but it's now acceptable. Double URGH. Impacted only applies to wisdom teeth in my lexicon.
Most American terms don't really bother me much, but that one grates.
*Someone may need to tell Ed Miliband what a conference bounce is....
I'd say that Sales is about targeting what Marketing handed to you in the most effective way - and currying favour/trust with the target audience. Marketing are the tools to do the job, but you need a tradesman to do the work on site.
Sales IMO is a much closer bedfellow to Marketing than Advertising or PR or any of the other disciplines. Crap offers and promotions can't be overcome by the best salesperson or PR bod or Ad Exec.
Ukip vote hold up or labour bounce back? You seem to say neither are likely
While you're about, can you confirm whether or not Roger and I are still not to interact with each other? There's been a couple of occasions since that ban where Roger has insulted me and I haven't responded. It would be good to know one way or another: either he should face consequences for breaking the ban, or I should be allowed to defend myself against him.
UKIP --> back to Tory (fear of PM Ed Miliband)
Labour --> some to UKIP (fear of PM Ed Miliband), some to Can't Be Arsed Party (underwhelmed by the idea of PM Ed Miliband)
As we stated yesterday - he didn't say "swamped"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29798434
Respect.
This Thursday: South Yorks PCC election
Nov 20: Rochester by-election
If UKIP can produce wins in these, it will keep their momentum rolling into the new year. If they can't then yes, I'd expect a drift down.
As an aside, I checked the S Yorks Euro-election results from this May. Labour outpolled UKIP by only a little over 1% of the vote. Turnout on Thursday can, however, be expected to be at best half what it was then. Question is (or questions are): who is most motivated to turn out, how much of UKIP's support is EU-specific, and how will the transfers go under SV?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29798434
Edited extra bit: thwarted, beaten by Dr. Spyn by a few minutes!