It would make a lot of sense. There would be huge cost savings. I can't see a huge downside. We would love to do the same in our business, but our readers like to get a magazine, unfortunately. The Guardian does not need to worry about that.
From that article: "The news that one of the strongest publishing companies, Daily Mail & General Trust, had to issue a warning to investors after reporting a 29% fall in profits should be seen as a landmark moment.
It was largely due to a 13% decline in print ad revenues at its titles - Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Metro - over a six-month period (with worse likely to follow)."
It's all newspapers that are facing problems. Maybe we need newspaper sized tablets.
I have a friend at the Telegraph with connections.
Pff. It's much much worse than that, at Guardian towers. There have been actual FIGHTS. It's hilarious in a macabre way. til they squeal.
The power they have is huge and cannot be tackled on a country by country basis. If you want their tax money, you need countries to work together. The EU could achieve a lot in this area. For what it's worth, they are also completely bolloxing up the patent and copyright systems, again to the huge detriment of smaller operators.
Agreed. One thing the bloody EU *could* actually do, with its enormous power, is take on the American internet Giants and win. Tax them EU-wide, give the money to news creators in each country. I see no real sign of their doing that. The odd spasm, but nothing significant.
At the moment Facebook and Google are getting much of the ad revenue generated by content created elsewhere. And it's getting worse.
Their model is brilliant, though. They have created addicts who then are incapable of legislating and ruling against their appropriation.
And when you think that he went through the 90s with those views in Conservative Central Office, it's understandable that he views the hard-core Leavers in his party with contempt.
An unprompted plug for PlusNet. My wife used to use them but switched to BT a couple of years ago. They contacted me this morning to say they had been reviewing the accounts and please contact them. Uh-oh, I thought, and gave them a call. They said they'd found the account had never been closed properly, and as a result, two years' subscription had been due.
Gulp. "How much do I owe you?"
"No, you misunderstand, we deducted £290 more than we should have, and we want to refund it. You'll get a cheque in two weeks' time."
Awesome. If they'd just let matters rest, I'd never have known. Clearly my wife or I should have noticed, but credit to them for fixing it.
Tripe. If we leave the EU Aldi and Netto will continue to prosper because they sell what people want to buy. It has nothing to do with a single market.
BMW sold cars pre EU and will do post EU.
Most of the diesels which kill thousands of people per year.
Unless you want to get OGH (that would be you) into trouble with BMW's lawyers, you might want to be clear that BMW were not involved in the emissions fixing:
Germany’s top manufacturers agreed to recall 630,000 vehicles to tweak diesel engine software technology blamed for causing high pollution. Volkswagen, Opel, Audi and Mercedes diesel cars will be recalled to fix engine management systems, a German government official said.
BMW, which invested in fuel saving technologies earlier than most rivals, was not part of the recall, the official said
No need for the caveat really. Current official test methods are hopelessly inadequate as a general statement, independent of OEM. Whether VW or anyone else were complying with the letter or the spirit of the law, or not, actually makes very little difference. NOx emissions on a cold day with an enthusiastic driver are eye wateringly high in most cases.
It is being addressed at an EU wide level...IMHO one of the best examples of where pan-European co-operation can in theory at least make perfect sense.
Diesel has to be part of the CO2 solution though, and the technology exists to clean up NOx much more comprehensively than today's testing mandates.
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
Anything which is a differentiated product is not, by definition, interchangeable. For example, an education at Eton is very different to one at Muggleton Comprehensive and you would not expect them to be priced the same.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
I remember a wonderful conversation I had with Bart Becht once in which he tried for 20 minutes to convince me that replacing the green Veet spatula with a pink one with an extra bend in it counted as "innovation".
He did show me the data, though, and it had a material impact on sales - it was a hook for a "new, improved" marketing campaign
Vote Leave have upped the ante in their EU Referendum campaign, by launching a competition worth £50m for the lucky person who can correctly predict all matches in the European Championships.
The competition is free, and if nobody wins the top prize, there is a guaranteed prize of £50,000 for the person who correctly guesses the highest number of consecutive games.
The prize is being funded through an insurance policy which has been taken out with underwriters at Lloyds.
They declined to say how much they had paid for the insurance policy, telling the Press Association that it would be "declared in the normal way".
The contest was "being funded specifically by two donors", they said
There are 51 matches, England vs Wales is 11-2 for England 1 - 0 (Top price, most likely score).
Since this is a well punted match, the probability of guessing correct score isn't going to be higher than 16% for each match (Or the bookies would soon run out of money)... 0.16^(51)
= 2.57 x 10^-41
Assuming 10 million entries, the chance of a payout is 2.57 x 10^-34 (Think thats right, you could have more than one winner)...
Which means the true cost of insuring this should be 1.28 x 10^-26 or considerably less than 1 penny.
Vote Leave have upped the ante in their EU Referendum campaign, by launching a competition worth £50m for the lucky person who can correctly predict all matches in the European Championships.
The competition is free, and if nobody wins the top prize, there is a guaranteed prize of £50,000 for the person who correctly guesses the highest number of consecutive games.
The prize is being funded through an insurance policy which has been taken out with underwriters at Lloyds.
They declined to say how much they had paid for the insurance policy, telling the Press Association that it would be "declared in the normal way".
The contest was "being funded specifically by two donors", they said
There are 51 matches, England vs Wales is 11-2 for England 1 - 0 (Top price, most likely score).
Since this is a well punted match, the probability of guessing correct score isn't going to be higher than 16% for each match (Or the bookies would soon run out of money)... 0.16^(51)
= 2.57 x 10^-41
Assuming 10 million entries, the chance of a payout is 2.57 x 10^-34 (Think thats right, you could have more than one winner)...
Which means the true cost of insuring this should be 1.28 x 10^-26 or considerably less than 1 penny.
Back of a fag packet maths got me to a fair insurance value of 22 pence per 10 million predicted entires for "winner" assuming there is a true evens favourite in each match
And when you think that he went through the 90s with those views in Conservative Central Office, it's understandable that he views the hard-core Leavers in his party with contempt.
Cameron is a small-c conservative by temperament and a big C-Conservative by virtue of his background.
He's not a thinker. I think he'd adopt the prevailing establishment view of whatever period he was living in.
Vote Leave have upped the ante in their EU Referendum campaign, by launching a competition worth £50m for the lucky person who can correctly predict all matches in the European Championships.
The competition is free, and if nobody wins the top prize, there is a guaranteed prize of £50,000 for the person who correctly guesses the highest number of consecutive games.
The prize is being funded through an insurance policy which has been taken out with underwriters at Lloyds.
They declined to say how much they had paid for the insurance policy, telling the Press Association that it would be "declared in the normal way".
The contest was "being funded specifically by two donors", they said
There are 51 matches, England vs Wales is 11-2 for England 1 - 0 (Top price, most likely score).
Since this is a well punted match, the probability of guessing correct score isn't going to be higher than 16% for each match (Or the bookies would soon run out of money)... 0.16^(51)
= 2.57 x 10^-41
Assuming 10 million entries, the chance of a payout is 2.57 x 10^-34 (Think thats right, you could have more than one winner)...
Which means the true cost of insuring this should be 1.28 x 10^-26 or considerably less than 1 penny.
The insurance premium is pure profit.
One of the bookies favourite bets is correct score accas, the chance of correctly predicting the score in 51 games is so remote it is irrelevant. The easiest £50k anybody ever made.
And that will be the end of them unless it gets a massive cash infusion from the big unions.
The Guardian has a fundamental business model/product problem. Millions of readers who don't pay for its very flashy website and a dwindling print run. The Times is making £10m pa.
according to el guido, it's not a happy scene at the torygraph either
Didn't I hear somewhere *cough* that the Telegraph had done away with many of its highly popular blogs?
IIRC, each blog earned the writer £80 or some such. Perhaps @SeanT can advise. It's a piffling sum for content that kept me visiting a dozen times a day. My visits since, and post new website are perhaps once a day.
snip
It would make a good half hour documentary on How Not To Run A Paper.
es and endless sponsored clickbait.
The newspaper industry is in a truly dire situation.
Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course.
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
Yep, I am not sure genius is the right word, but he is truly brilliant at what he does. I admire him hugely. Even though politically he is miles away from me I can't join in the leftie group-hatred. There is so much to learn from him from a journalism and business perspective.
And when you think that he went through the 90s with those views in Conservative Central Office, it's understandable that he views the hard-core Leavers in his party with contempt.
Cameron is a small-c conservative by temperament and a big C-Conservative by virtue of his background.
He's not a thinker. I think he'd adopt the prevailing establishment view of whatever period he was living in.
Just caught up on the EU army story. It is, I think, a dangerous fantasy for the EU to try and establish a military arm.
Armies exist for one reason - to fight. How many young people will volunteer to fight, and maybe die, for the EU? Even if they could fill the ranks it would be effectively useless.
Secondly, if they tried to create an EU command structure to which national governments committed their own resources it would dangerously undermine NATO, which itself is already struggling because too many of its members, including the UK, will not commit the necessary cash and some will not fight.
Thirdly, who decides on operations? Who will have the say on whether a unit will be committed to combat? If the units belong to individual states then the governments of those states will insist on having a say about how those units are deployed. Again we have already seen how this fails when we look at the history of the Afghan campaign - the Italians bribed the Taliban not to attack them, the Germans did not leave their camps during the hours of darkness (and took up logistics space flying in wine and beer for their chaps) and some countries just did not take part at all. If the EU military arm is genuinely autonomous of individual countries then we are back to square one, who will die for the EU?
Finally what will almost certainly happen is that many EU states will take the opportunity to cut their defence spending even further, after all the EU will protect them. Then when the push becomes a shove the EU military is revealed as the paper tiger it will be.
Cameron vetoed this dangerous nonsense in 2011, one must hope he does so again if we vote to stay in.
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
"Officials have kept the Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy under lock and key and officials working on them are only allowed to make hand written notes while reviewing the material in a specific room.
They must leave all phones and computers outside but diplomats' notes were leaked today."
An unprompted plug for PlusNet. My wife used to use them but switched to BT a couple of years ago. They contacted me this morning to say they had been reviewing the accounts and please contact them. Uh-oh, I thought, and gave them a call. They said they'd found the account had never been closed properly, and as a result, two years' subscription had been due.
Gulp. "How much do I owe you?"
"No, you misunderstand, we deducted £290 more than we should have, and we want to refund it. You'll get a cheque in two weeks' time."
Awesome. If they'd just let matters rest, I'd never have known. Clearly my wife or I should have noticed, but credit to them for fixing it.
The only mention I have seen relating to actual use of an EU army was the wish by Brussels to put troops in Greece with or without the Greek government agreement. Nothing else. I think the EU still expects the USA to fight any real wars for them.
A commodity is any object that can be bought, sold or marketed. You are, on reflection, half right: education might be better described as a service, since it is not an object in the sense that a tea-bag (or a Rolls-Royce, for that matter) is - but it is certainly marketable. "Speciality products" are merely a sub-set of commodities.
Wrong, although it is often used like that:
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
It refers to low value, basic goods - usually inputs - such as oil, coal, commodity chemicals, etc.
Anything which is a differentiated product is not, by definition, interchangeable. For example, an education at Eton is very different to one at Muggleton Comprehensive and you would not expect them to be priced the same.
I was on a course once where it was argued that there is no such thing as a commodity, clever marketing types like Roger can differentiate goods even when they are surely exactly the same.
Examples are Cravendale milk (which comes from the same effing cows as other milk) and people who refuse to buy petrol from supermarkets but go to Esso or BP instead to buy the standard 95 RON product despite the fact it's the same stuff bought from the same refineries (Hint: Tesco do not own oil wells...)
Look at bottled water sales FFS
I remember a wonderful conversation I had with Bart Becht once in which he tried for 20 minutes to convince me that replacing the green Veet spatula with a pink one with an extra bend in it counted as "innovation".
He did show me the data, though, and it had a material impact on sales - it was a hook for a "new, improved" marketing campaign
"Yep, I am not sure genius is the right word, but he is truly brilliant at what he does. I admire him hugely. Even though politically he is miles away from me I can't join in the leftie group-hatred. There is so much to learn from him from a journalism and business perspective."
I remember when Murdoch brought in his ironclad paywall at The Times. There was much scoffing here on PB, and over at the Guardian. You don't hear those sneers any more.
Murdoch is prepared to invest in content and technology, and to take a hit for longer term gain. That goes back to him getting it. He had confidence in the brand and knew its readership. The challenge he has now with the Times is growing the business from behind a paywall. I guess that's where the wider platform comes in.
It's worth noting, though, that the Sun paywall didn't work. The Mail may have similar issues if it goes that way.
"Yep, I am not sure genius is the right word, but he is truly brilliant at what he does. I admire him hugely. Even though politically he is miles away from me I can't join in the leftie group-hatred. There is so much to learn from him from a journalism and business perspective."
I remember when Murdoch brought in his ironclad paywall at The Times. There was much scoffing here on PB, and over at the Guardian. You don't hear those sneers any more.
Murdoch is prepared to invest in content and technology, and to take a hit for longer term gain. That goes back to him getting it. He had confidence in the brand and knew its readership. The challenge he has now with the Times is growing the business from behind a paywall. I guess that's where the wider platform comes in.
It's worth noting, though, that the Sun paywall didn't work. The Mail may have similar issues if it goes that way.
Murdoch bet the farm on BSkyB as was. Many thought he was insane.
An unprompted plug for PlusNet. My wife used to use them but switched to BT a couple of years ago. They contacted me this morning to say they had been reviewing the accounts and please contact them. Uh-oh, I thought, and gave them a call. They said they'd found the account had never been closed properly, and as a result, two years' subscription had been due.
Gulp. "How much do I owe you?"
"No, you misunderstand, we deducted £290 more than we should have, and we want to refund it. You'll get a cheque in two weeks' time."
Awesome. If they'd just let matters rest, I'd never have known. Clearly my wife or I should have noticed, but credit to them for fixing it.
plusnet is owned by BT.
It is indeed, but it still retains its own ethos. When I had a problem the other week and I phoned them for help I spoke to a real person in Sheffield who actually knew what they were talking about and could communicate it in a way that I could understand. I didn't get the human robot reading out a script.
I have been a customer of Plus Net since they took over Force9 nearly twenty years ago, they are not perfect but I wouldn't switch to another supplier.
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
I don't see why they couldn't do that anyway. i never really got the fuss over NI/Sky given that they were all largely within the same stable already. My assumption was that the takeover was simply about profit retention than anything else. And if that's even close to right then the takeover will happen eventually because there aren't really any competition implications.
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
Many of us LEAVERS have been pointing out for ages that after we vote REMAIN, the EU will start doing all the horrible stuff it has in store for us, from EU taxes to EU migrant quotas. The stuff they're holding back now.
Nonetheless I'm surprised they are waiting just one day - one single day - after our vote, before announcing the EU Army.
One day. Lol. Imagine how popular Dave "REMAIN" Cameron is going to be, in the months following our referendum, as all this crapola unravels in front of us. He will be driven from office by howling dogs.
If that does happen, the greatest long-term friend of Brexiters will be the Eurocrats themselves.
They simply aren't able to interpret any vote for the EU in any other way than "more Europe please, we love it" and their own behaviour, lies and arrogance will be what drives the balance of the UK electorate ultimately to the exit.
We know what they think at the moment:
Daniel Hannan Daniel Hannan – Verified account @DanHannanMEP
No one in Brussels seriously expects Britain to #VoteLeave. Attitudes range from contempt to outright sneering. 10:02 a.m. - 23 May 2016
Many of us LEAVERS have been pointing out for ages that after we vote REMAIN, the EU will start doing all the horrible stuff it has in store for us, from EU taxes to EU migrant quotas. The stuff they're holding back now.
Nonetheless I'm surprised they are waiting just one day - one single day - after our vote, before announcing the EU Army.
One day. Lol. Imagine how popular Dave "REMAIN" Cameron is going to be, in the months following our referendum, as all this crapola unravels in front of us. He will be driven from office by howling dogs.
I think discussion of an EU army is more a sign of weakness and inability to do anything serious rather than a serious statement of intent.
"Rather than attempt a sudden lurch to integrate the eurozone, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President François Hollande are instead eyeing a push to deepen security and defence co-operation, a less contentious initiative that has appeal beyond the 19-member euro area. "
"Furthermore, Mogherini's draft text includes ideas aimed at exploring stronger joint European defense efforts -- a potentially dangerous approach given that British tabloids passionately disparage any suggestion of a European army. Mogherini has now been forced to push her presentation back to June 24....
Fears of a Brexit are also paralyzing the Brussels bureaucracy. New environmentally friendly design requirements for hair dryers, toasters and smartphones are long overdue, but those kinds of regulations are easy prey for populists in Britain already upset by EU rules on such things like the electricity consumption of lightbulbs or vacuum cleaners. The plan now is for eco-design directives to first be updated after the referendum.
...Merkel's reputation in Great Britain has plummeted dramatically since the refugee crisis, one British diplomat said. Her market value in Britain at the moment is about at the level of a European commissioner. "It's better not to have her on your side," the source said. ."
Many of us LEAVERS have been pointing out for ages that after we vote REMAIN, the EU will start doing all the horrible stuff it has in store for us, from EU taxes to EU migrant quotas. The stuff they're holding back now.
Nonetheless I'm surprised they are waiting just one day - one single day - after our vote, before announcing the EU Army.
One day. Lol. Imagine how popular Dave "REMAIN" Cameron is going to be, in the months following our referendum, as all this crapola unravels in front of us. He will be driven from office by howling dogs.
If that does happen, the greatest long-term friend of Brexiters will be the Eurocrats themselves.
They simply aren't able to interpret any vote for the EU in any other way than "more Europe please, we love it" and their own behaviour, lies and arrogance will be what drives the balance of the UK electorate ultimately to the exit.
We know what they think at the moment:
Daniel Hannan Daniel Hannan – Verified account @DanHannanMEP
No one in Brussels seriously expects Britain to #VoteLeave. Attitudes range from contempt to outright sneering. 10:02 a.m. - 23 May 2016
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
At present the new deal for the BBC seems like a missed opportunity that risks making them irrelevant by the time there is any appetite for serious reform. But the brand is strong enough that there will always be hope.
Someone mentioned yesterday that the Californian mindset behind companies like Facebook and Google is very alien here. Even our own technology sector is imbued with a kind of cynicism you wouldn't find in the US.
If there is to be an EU army, I suspect the cause of it will be President Trump reducing the US commitment to NATO.
I'd far rather than all EU countries commiting to fund the NATO 2% GDP target on defence.
I actually don't have a problem with infra-European cooperation on defence and security done on a bi-lateral or multi-lateral alliance basis between governments. It's prudent and sensible.
I'm buggered if I'm letting it be done under the auspices of the Lisbon Treaty and as a policy arm of the EU high representative.
"A warning that every household would be £4,300 worse off as a result of leaving the European Union is based on a false assumption about the value of the single market to British trade, according to a think-tank.
Civitas said the Treasury figures trumpeted by Chancellor George Osborne last month wrongly claimed that full membership of the single market was the most beneficial for trade compared to other relationships, while operating outside this under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules was the least beneficial.
The think-tank said that statistics from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) showed that in fact the reverse was true."
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
I note you use the word 'private' in your post.
That misses out the BBC, of course.
Let me guess. You aren't a Jew or Catholic?
Er no. I have no religious affiliation and might I remind you that the BBC is heavily regulated and always has been. People can claim Murdoch is this great businessman if they want. But how has he achieved continual success? By using his media ownership (and the political power it brings) to lobby governments to get the commercial decisions that suit him. Allowing a monopoly on Premier League TV rights (the backbone of Sky's success) being one example.
If there is to be an EU army, I suspect the cause of it will be President Trump reducing the US commitment to NATO.
The likely increasing unreliability of the US is one of the stronger factors that pushes me in a Europhile direction. What does the US get of of NATO? Sure, Russia is being a pain but is that a sufficiently large challenge to merit the US revolving its foreign policy around, particularly with a larger growing geopolitical threat in China?
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
What 'control' is that?
The electronic media are more competitive than ever before, while print is less relevant than ever before (or at least, since the dawn of the railways).
I think Leave are justified in using the gross figure for a number of reasons. The EU decides what the money is spent on and some of it is conditional on further money from Westminster.
But my main gripe is that the Remain campaign and the supposedly neutral BBC have made a big play on the money that comes back from Brussels. They have signed up scientists, farmers (well, the union at least) and others to tell us that leaving the EU would harm them. Well that's fine, but you can't then complain that your opponents are using the gross number.
The EU army makes it certain the USA will walk away from NATO. I hear the French want to break up NATO anyway. The next time Mrs Merkel comes out of a meeting with Putin white faced and shaking - she will have something to shake about.
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
I note you use the word 'private' in your post.
That misses out the BBC, of course.
Let me guess. You aren't a Jew or Catholic?
Er no. I have no religious affiliation and might I remind you that the BBC is heavily regulated and always has been. People can claim Murdoch is this great businessman if they want. But how has he achieved continual success? By using his media ownership (and the political power it brings) to lobby governments to get the commercial decisions that suit him. Allowing a monopoly on Premier League TV rights (the backbone of Sky's success) being one example.
If it was that easy, they'd all do it.
You should be far more worried about the power of Google than of the Murdoch media.
If there is to be an EU army, I suspect the cause of it will be President Trump reducing the US commitment to NATO.
I'd far rather than all EU countries commiting to fund the NATO 2% GDP target on defence.
I actually don't have a problem with infra-European cooperation on defence and security done on a bi-lateral or multi-lateral alliance basis between governments. It's prudent and sensible.
I'm buggered if I'm letting it be done under the auspices of the Lisbon Treaty and as a policy arm of the EU high representative.
If you read what Trump said in a Playboy interview in 1990, he was very negative on the US defending Japan and Europe. Of course, who knows what he thinks now, but it is something to consider as a possibility under President Trump.
"Its mainly run by people who grew up in the analogue era. They don't get the changes. It's exactly what's happened in music, TV, film etc. Murdoch does get it, of course."
Again, agreed. Despite the odd mistake (MySpace), the 184 year old Murdoch has a better grasp of digital media than the 40-somethings running the Telegraph and the Guardian.
I went to a meeting with my editors at HarperCollins this week. Their new HQ is the Baby Shard, spectacular offices looking across the Thames to the City. Of course the entire News Corp empire is in there now, as well, Times, Sunday Times. Dow Jones. Digital media. The Sun. Cable TV. Magazines. The lot.
The whole place buzzes with energy and importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
What 'control' is that?
The electronic media are more competitive than ever before, while print is less relevant than ever before (or at least, since the dawn of the railways).
Well yes things have changed. But there must have been some explanation for Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne's sycophancy.
Vote Leave appear to be running a competition to predict the results of the European football championships, with a £50 million prize - https://50million.uk/
This seems a rather peculiar thing for them to do, though I suppose it could be someone else impersonating them.
Southam said: importance. 4000 workers. Huge. It's working well because Murdoch long ago realized you have to build seriously multimedia platforms. Only they will survive.
It is also what the MSM missed about the whole News International wanting to merge with Sky and was scuppered by phone hacking. Murdoch wanted to build an integrated platform of content and content delivery which you use from dawn to dusk, home, on the move, in the office etc.
Absolutely right. Which is why the Guardian lied and lied again about Millie Dowler: to damage Murdoch by association, and stop that merger. The Guardian won the battle, but has lost the war.
And I bet the integration of Sky and Newscorp will happen anyway. It will be one of the few British media giants, along with the BBC, that will survive the coming carnage, and hopefully prove a match for Facebook Etc
Sorry but it's an awful idea for one private organisation to have such a level of control of the media. The treatment of Murdoch and his businesses by successive UK governments should be a source of national embarrassment.
I note you use the word 'private' in your post.
That misses out the BBC, of course.
Let me guess. You aren't a Jew or Catholic?
Er no. I have no religious affiliation and might I remind you that the BBC is heavily regulated and always has been. People can claim Murdoch is this great businessman if they want. But how has he achieved continual success? By using his media ownership (and the political power it brings) to lobby governments to get the commercial decisions that suit him. Allowing a monopoly on Premier League TV rights (the backbone of Sky's success) being one example.
Heavily regulated? Didn't a certain massive scandal, did it?
He has turned bankrupt and loss-making newspapers into profitable ones.
You just hate him because he has done what others couldn't. You seem quite happy with media control as long as it is in hands sympathetic to your views.
If there is to be an EU army, I suspect the cause of it will be President Trump reducing the US commitment to NATO.
I'd far rather than all EU countries commiting to fund the NATO 2% GDP target on defence.
I actually don't have a problem with infra-European cooperation on defence and security done on a bi-lateral or multi-lateral alliance basis between governments. It's prudent and sensible.
I'm buggered if I'm letting it be done under the auspices of the Lisbon Treaty and as a policy arm of the EU high representative.
If you read what Trump said in a Playboy interview in 1990, he was very negative on the US defending Japan and Europe. Of course, who knows what he thinks now, but it is something to consider as a possibility under President Trump.
He's been making similar points throughout the campaign. It's one of the issues he's been most consistent on for decades so it's a safe bet that a Trump presidency will lead to significant changes in global defence arrangements.
Going back to the debate about news & paywalls etc.
There's a long article on Politico about Salon.com.
" “The low point arrived when my editor G-chatted me with the observation that our traffic figures were lagging that day and ordered me to ‘publish something within the hour,’” Andrew Leonard, who left Salon in 2014, recalled in a post. “Which, translated into my new reality, meant ‘Go troll Twitter for something to get mad about — Uber, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Tea Party Republicans — and then produce a rant about it.’"
Vote Leave appear to be running a competition to predict the results of the European football championships, with a £50 million prize - https://50million.uk/
This seems a rather peculiar thing for them to do, though I suppose it could be someone else impersonating them.
It's a rather clever, virtually zero risk PR stunt. Getting the Meh potential voter to grasp how much we pay to the EU everyday = £50m. It's a huge sum made flesh through a free bet.
The figure of £350m is entirely correct, because the money that comes back must be spent as the EU authorities mandate.
Sir Andrew Dilnot is entitled to his own opinions. He isn't entitled to his own facts.
The thing is, even if Leave went for the figure post rebate, of £190m per week, it is a still a large enough number to resonate with voters and negates any attacks of the veracity of Leave's numbers as a whole.
Did the bar staff tell you what you had to spend your change on though?
If they had, it would not make the headline any less misleading.
The pint still didn't cost me £20.
For my £20 I got a pint and a bunch of other stuff.
Likewise the £350m figure is officially misleading, because it is not all spent as per the claim
So you didn't get any change, you got 'a bunch of other stuff'. You order a pint, handed over your £20, and they served you a pint, fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg. And you're happy with that.
Did the bar staff tell you what you had to spend your change on though?
If they had, it would not make the headline any less misleading.
The pint still didn't cost me £20.
For my £20 I got a pint and a bunch of other stuff.
Likewise the £350m figure is officially misleading, because it is not all spent as per the claim
So you didn't get any change, you got 'a bunch of other stuff'. You order a pint, handed over your £20, and they served you a pint, fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg. And you're happy with that.
Two pints of lager and a packet of crisps should have been an absolute red line for Cameron.
So you didn't get any change, you got 'a bunch of other stuff'. You order a pint, handed over your £20, and they served you a pint, fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg. And you're happy with that.
If I wanted fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg, yes. EDIT: I still wouldn't claim the pint cost me £20 though
The money we get back from the EU goes on things we want like farm subsidies, which is of course why Leave are using the officially misleading figure instead.
"We spend £350m a week on the EU and subsidies for British farmers" while being more accurate doesn't quite suit their purpose
So you didn't get any change, you got 'a bunch of other stuff'. You order a pint, handed over your £20, and they served you a pint, fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg. And you're happy with that.
If I wanted fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg, yes.
The money we get back from the EU goes on things we want like farm subsidies, which is of course why Leave are using the officially misleading figure instead.
"We spend £350m a week on the EU and subsidies for British farmers" while being more accurate doesn't quite suit their purpose
Scott loves socialism - the big government of the EU knows how to spend money best.
So you didn't get any change, you got 'a bunch of other stuff'. You order a pint, handed over your £20, and they served you a pint, fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg. And you're happy with that.
If I wanted fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg, yes. EDIT: I still wouldn't claim the pint cost me £20 though
The money we get back from the EU goes on things we want like farm subsidies, which is of course why Leave are using the officially misleading figure instead.
"We spend £350m a week on the EU and subsidies for British farmers" while being more accurate doesn't quite suit their purpose
"things we want". Hands up all those who want agri-conglomerates getting huge subsidies.
So you didn't get any change, you got 'a bunch of other stuff'. You order a pint, handed over your £20, and they served you a pint, fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg. And you're happy with that.
If I wanted fifteen packets of ready salted and a pickled egg, yes. EDIT: I still wouldn't claim the pint cost me £20 though
The money we get back from the EU goes on things we want like farm subsidies, which is of course why Leave are using the officially misleading figure instead.
"We spend £350m a week on the EU and subsidies for British farmers" while being more accurate doesn't quite suit their purpose
Some of us might think that spending £2.5bn a year, paying subsidies to 55,000 people, is a less than optimal use of taxpayers' money.
Comments
"I am not a closet anything. I have pretty much had the same view about Europe ever since I got involved in active politics," the PM said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36396066
Gulp. "How much do I owe you?"
"No, you misunderstand, we deducted £290 more than we should have, and we want to refund it. You'll get a cheque in two weeks' time."
Awesome. If they'd just let matters rest, I'd never have known. Clearly my wife or I should have noticed, but credit to them for fixing it.
It is being addressed at an EU wide level...IMHO one of the best examples of where pan-European co-operation can in theory at least make perfect sense.
Diesel has to be part of the CO2 solution though, and the technology exists to clean up NOx much more comprehensively than today's testing mandates.
Probably already said too much.
Both equally wrong, of course!
He did show me the data, though, and it had a material impact on sales - it was a hook for a "new, improved" marketing campaign
Neither of you will understand the funniest Christmas cracker joke ever written...
"What is the faster cake in the World?'
Since this is a well punted match, the probability of guessing correct score isn't going to be higher than 16% for each match (Or the bookies would soon run out of money)... 0.16^(51)
= 2.57 x 10^-41
Assuming 10 million entries, the chance of a payout is 2.57 x 10^-34 (Think thats right, you could have more than one winner)...
Which means the true cost of insuring this should be 1.28 x 10^-26 or considerably less than 1 penny.
The insurance premium is pure profit.
If only he had not attempted to disguise his views from his party for so long. It was bound to end in tears.
Back of a fag packet maths got me to a fair insurance value of 22 pence per 10 million predicted entires for "winner" assuming there is a true evens favourite in each match
He's not a thinker. I think he'd adopt the prevailing establishment view of whatever period he was living in.
- Odds of winning are 1 in 2,250,000,000,000,000
- It's all about getting your data
https://t.co/28pVZNClBp
Agreed. As in Scone of Stone (T Pratchett).
Armies exist for one reason - to fight. How many young people will volunteer to fight, and maybe die, for the EU? Even if they could fill the ranks it would be effectively useless.
Secondly, if they tried to create an EU command structure to which national governments committed their own resources it would dangerously undermine NATO, which itself is already struggling because too many of its members, including the UK, will not commit the necessary cash and some will not fight.
Thirdly, who decides on operations? Who will have the say on whether a unit will be committed to combat? If the units belong to individual states then the governments of those states will insist on having a say about how those units are deployed. Again we have already seen how this fails when we look at the history of the Afghan campaign - the Italians bribed the Taliban not to attack them, the Germans did not leave their camps during the hours of darkness (and took up logistics space flying in wine and beer for their chaps) and some countries just did not take part at all. If the EU military arm is genuinely autonomous of individual countries then we are back to square one, who will die for the EU?
Finally what will almost certainly happen is that many EU states will take the opportunity to cut their defence spending even further, after all the EU will protect them. Then when the push becomes a shove the EU military is revealed as the paper tiger it will be.
Cameron vetoed this dangerous nonsense in 2011, one must hope he does so again if we vote to stay in.
"Officials have kept the Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy under lock and key and officials working on them are only allowed to make hand written notes while reviewing the material in a specific room.
They must leave all phones and computers outside but diplomats' notes were leaked today."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3612257/Plans-EU-army-kept-SECRET-British-voters-day-referendum.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRIRACUmTPE
It's worth noting, though, that the Sun paywall didn't work. The Mail may have similar issues if it goes that way.
More of this shit from the WTO next week, and the IMF in the last few days. And probably a couple of others.
All interfering in the main campaign period of a vote that is entirely our business.
I hope the voters tell them all to bugger off.
I have been a customer of Plus Net since they took over Force9 nearly twenty years ago, they are not perfect but I wouldn't switch to another supplier.
They simply aren't able to interpret any vote for the EU in any other way than "more Europe please, we love it" and their own behaviour, lies and arrogance will be what drives the balance of the UK electorate ultimately to the exit.
We know what they think at the moment:
Daniel Hannan
Daniel Hannan – Verified account @DanHannanMEP
No one in Brussels seriously expects Britain to #VoteLeave. Attitudes range from contempt to outright sneering.
10:02 a.m. - 23 May 2016
"Rather than attempt a sudden lurch to integrate the eurozone, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President François Hollande are instead eyeing a push to deepen security and defence co-operation, a less contentious initiative that has appeal beyond the 19-member euro area. "
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/09668b3e-2357-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html?siteedition=uk#axzz49qybDcGX
"Furthermore, Mogherini's draft text includes ideas aimed at exploring stronger joint European defense efforts -- a potentially dangerous approach given that British tabloids passionately disparage any suggestion of a European army. Mogherini has now been forced to push her presentation back to June 24....
Fears of a Brexit are also paralyzing the Brussels bureaucracy. New environmentally friendly design requirements for hair dryers, toasters and smartphones are long overdue, but those kinds of regulations are easy prey for populists in Britain already upset by EU rules on such things like the electricity consumption of lightbulbs or vacuum cleaners. The plan now is for eco-design directives to first be updated after the referendum.
...Merkel's reputation in Great Britain has plummeted dramatically since the refugee crisis, one British diplomat said. Her market value in Britain at the moment is about at the level of a European commissioner. "It's better not to have her on your side," the source said. ."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/why-eu-leaders-are-not-speaking-out-about-brexit-a-1094261.html
That misses out the BBC, of course.
Let me guess. You aren't a Jew or Catholic?
Someone mentioned yesterday that the Californian mindset behind companies like Facebook and Google is very alien here. Even our own technology sector is imbued with a kind of cynicism you wouldn't find in the US.
I actually don't have a problem with infra-European cooperation on defence and security done on a bi-lateral or multi-lateral alliance basis between governments. It's prudent and sensible.
I'm buggered if I'm letting it be done under the auspices of the Lisbon Treaty and as a policy arm of the EU high representative.
http://news.sky.com/story/1702853/brexit-warnings-wrong-on-trade-think-tank
"A warning that every household would be £4,300 worse off as a result of leaving the European Union is based on a false assumption about the value of the single market to British trade, according to a think-tank.
Civitas said the Treasury figures trumpeted by Chancellor George Osborne last month wrongly claimed that full membership of the single market was the most beneficial for trade compared to other relationships, while operating outside this under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules was the least beneficial.
The think-tank said that statistics from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) showed that in fact the reverse was true."
http://jerichoconsulting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/man-with-fingers-in-ears.jpg
"...he suggested that high immigration was a price worth paying for the economic benefits"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/cameron-ends-g7-with-plea-to-remain-in-eu-and-avoid-economic-wreck-8gfv09v5l
The electronic media are more competitive than ever before, while print is less relevant than ever before (or at least, since the dawn of the railways).
But my main gripe is that the Remain campaign and the supposedly neutral BBC have made a big play on the money that comes back from Brussels. They have signed up scientists, farmers (well, the union at least) and others to tell us that leaving the EU would harm them. Well that's fine, but you can't then complain that your opponents are using the gross number.
I paid £20 for a pint last week
(apart from the change)
You should be far more worried about the power of Google than of the Murdoch media.
This seems a rather peculiar thing for them to do, though I suppose it could be someone else impersonating them.
He has turned bankrupt and loss-making newspapers into profitable ones.
You just hate him because he has done what others couldn't. You seem quite happy with media control as long as it is in hands sympathetic to your views.
Conservative HOLD Northallerton (North Yorkshire), swing from UKIP TO Con
Northallerton (North Yorkshire) result:
CON: 48.3% (-4.1)
UKIP: 20.5% (-10.6)
LAB: 17.2% (+0.7)
YFIR: 9.7% (+9.7)
GRN: 4.3% (+4.3)
There's a long article on Politico about Salon.com.
" “The low point arrived when my editor G-chatted me with the observation that our traffic figures were lagging that day and ordered me to ‘publish something within the hour,’” Andrew Leonard, who left Salon in 2014, recalled in a post. “Which, translated into my new reality, meant ‘Go troll Twitter for something to get mad about — Uber, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Tea Party Republicans — and then produce a rant about it.’"
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551#ixzz49r6Ss0d9
Sir Andrew Dilnot is entitled to his own opinions. He isn't entitled to his own facts.
The pint still didn't cost me £20.
For my £20 I got a pint and a bunch of other stuff.
Likewise the £350m figure is officially misleading, because it is not all spent as per the claim
Genius.
His opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine.
The money we get back from the EU goes on things we want like farm subsidies, which is of course why Leave are using the officially misleading figure instead.
"We spend £350m a week on the EU and subsidies for British farmers" while being more accurate doesn't quite suit their purpose
If you love Britain then vote to remain on 23rd June, says Caroline Flint.