Really weird how the U.S and U.K unemployment rates have been shadowing each other for years now. Both at 4.9%. I know the labor participation rate in the U.S has been falling, and the numbers will be measured differently, but still I find it a bit odd given how different our economies are.
This is a chart of US employment vs unemployment from 1990 to 2009:
As you can see (and as should be no surprise), there is a very high level of correlation between employment rate and unemployment rate.
Now: US unemployment is 4.9%. Which means employment should be... oooh... around 62.5%.
Would anyone care to guess what the actual US employment rate is?
That's a HUGE difference, and one that correlates with US unemployment closer to 9%.
Now look at this: US unemployment vs US food stamps
Democrats deserve to lose for that graph alone.
The problem is that the solution proposed by Donald Trump - i.e. moving away from free trade - doesn't work.
Well, sure, medium term. But the US economy is only about 4% exposed to exports - it's biggest part in the global economy is as a massive consumer (I'm not sure I buy your "Pax Americana secures foreign markets" argument yesterday, to be honest; supply chains, sure). In the short term, there could be some benefits from a more protectionist stance. Horrible long term, though.
No question, the biggest issue is the labour participation rate, and the impact it will have on long term US growth rates. It's been a worry for a while, now; setting up barriers to trade to foster internal substitution might look like an appealing solution, like you I can't see it having a happy ending.
Sorry, you're absolutely right, I was quoting the wrong stat. But even so, compared to a genuinely export based economy (Germany is almost 50%), curtailing exports might *look* survivable to the US, if you squinted hard.
As an aside, the Markit UK flash PMI is out this morning at 9:30. It's expected to decline. But...
The BOE has seen no slowdown yet, and the French and German PMIs (which were expected to go backwards) actually improved sharply.
I think the UK numbers might also be surprisingly good.
Am I going mad or is this a first for the UK? I don't remember getting preliminary figures from Markit before now.
It's relatively recent, but this isn't a first. Markit has run flash numbers for the UK, France, Germany and "the Eurozone" since late last year I think.
I must just not have noticed for the UK because I've been tracking the other three. Weird.
They're going to be pretty grim. Sub 50 for both ofc.
Well, we'll know in about 15 minutes.
Hmm, been doing some digging, I think I'm right. This is the first month Markit are doing preliminary data for the UK, at least I can't find any reference to a prior release of UK preliminary figures.
Ouch.
John_M was right. They are quite ugly. Composite from 52.4 to 47.7.
There could well be a disconnect between actual results and market confidence, until, at least, confidence feeds back into actual results.
Well the Bank's own agents are reporting that very little has changed, what stands out to me is the expectations graph, that is a big drop.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
Trump's speech last night was strong and powerful and tough on immigration and national security and firmly protectionist. However he also had some moments of 'compassion' including promising to protect LGBTQ voters, for which he was applauded in a rare Cameron style moment. Overall though it was more Nixon 1968 than Reagan 1980. Nonetheless the convention has certainly delivered much of the drama and showbiz Trump promised in contrast to the dull and boring convention he felt Romney delivered in 2012
I thought the two most interesting pivots were using law-and-order/anti terrorism as appeals for poor blacks/LGBTs.
The whole thing is worth reading.
Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBT community. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. To protect us from terrorism, we need to focus on three things.
We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror.
and then
"This Administration has failed America’s inner cities. It’s failed them on education. It’s failed them on jobs. It’s failed them on crime. It’s failed them at every level.
When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America?"
While I'm firmly in the Brexsh*t camp we need to be very careful with one months sentiment based data after people have had a huge shock.
Yes, additionally this is preliminary data and obviously doesn't include the final week of July, there may be a relative improvement based on political stability. For a lot of the data period the UK had no government and no strategy. For the last week or so we have a government, and this week it looks like we are going to have the formation of a strategy.
"At this level, the survey is signalling a 0.4% contraction of the economy in the third quarter"
It's pretty depressing reading, tbh.
Then again, it's based on two weeks eight days worth of data in the immediate aftermath of the biggest political shock in the nation's history since Germany invaded Poland.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
My issue with all the hoop-la is simply this. We have an excellent environmental record. Our energy consumption has dropped by 13% in the last decade. Our domestic energy consumption has dropped by 27% since 2000.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
The rich are jsut stuffing their pockets full till it blows up. Not hard to see the Tories getting a bloody nose at next election.
From whom?
From the public, who else votes or are you expecting aliens to land.
The 2008/2009 "great recession" was the worst output drop in the UK since the 1930s. I don't think we should be using that as our compare.
I think in terms of recessions past we should look at the double dip that never was, a bit of a slowdown caused by the shock of falling government spending and investment.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
Trump's speech last night was strong and powerful and tough on immigration and national security and firmly protectionist. However he also had some moments of 'compassion' including promising to protect LGBTQ voters, for which he was applauded in a rare Cameron style moment. Overall though it was more Nixon 1968 than Reagan 1980. Nonetheless the convention has certainly delivered much of the drama and showbiz Trump promised in contrast to the dull and boring convention he felt Romney delivered in 2012
I thought the two most interesting pivots were using law-and-order/anti terrorism as appeals for poor blacks/LGBTs.
The whole thing is worth reading.
Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBT community. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. To protect us from terrorism, we need to focus on three things.
We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror.
and then
"This Administration has failed America’s inner cities. It’s failed them on education. It’s failed them on jobs. It’s failed them on crime. It’s failed them at every level.
When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America?"
Yes a majority of homosexuals and blacks will vote for Hillary inevitably but Trump knows if he can win a few more of them than Romney did and win a landslide amongst the white working and lower middle-class he will probably win
Then again, it's based on two weeks eight days worth of data in the immediate aftermath of the biggest political shock in the nation's history since Germany invaded Poland.
Yes considering the context I don't think it is too bad, and the rapid formation of a new government should give a boost.
Labour's eco system. built up over a century and more, it is dying before our very eyes and there is little that can be done to stop it,...
Sadly you are right. This is how parties die. Labour's election winning coalition of the left is being dismantled by Corbyn.
People said the same of the Tories under IDS etc
Realistically there is no major challenger to replace Labour as official opposition. Even if Corbyn leads Labour to a worse defeat than Michael Foot did, what's going to happen next? Corbyn will have been shown to have failed, will leave in disgrace and be spoken about in similar tones to Foot. Labour will enter a period of rebuilding and eventually will, sadly, return to office.
Sensible Labour folks should sit down and stop being hysterical. Start planning your post-2020 rebuilding now.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
1. Labour stands for the principles in its constitution. 2. By rich Tories. (FWIW I was told by an estate agent - in the 1970s! - "no one ever nought their first home honestly".)
And if that's good enough for you I really do hope you meet a slow and painful death.
The difference with IDS and the Tories is that in Labour's case, we can point to a case where they did fall off a cliff - Scotland. It can be argued that this is a different country etc etc, but there you go, it demonstrates that the deep, family roots to the party are worthless in the modern world. They have to win every vote now.
The Liberals collapsed almost to nothing in the middle part of last century.
It can happen.
Perhaps its just the way for left wing parties-they main one needs to be replaced every now and again.
The Tories don't because the right is not " progressive " or the Tories always change just enough for survival.
While I'm firmly in the Brexsh*t camp we need to be very careful with one months sentiment based data after people have had a huge shock.
Yes, additionally this is preliminary data and obviously doesn't include the final week of July, there may be a relative improvement based on political stability. For a lot of the data period the UK had no government and no strategy. For the last week or so we have a government, and this week it looks like we are going to have the formation of a strategy.
As I posted on here the other day, beware of reading too much into 'shock' affected surveys like this. Have a look at 1998 and 2001 when these surveys got things badly wrong.
I don't accept the higher level proposition that if I accept that there is any link between smoking and lung cancer, then I also accept that correlation implies causation. It is logical fallacy 101 on here this morning.
Here is something else to think about: how many instances of smokers, non-smokers, lung cancer sufferers and non lung cancer sufferers did Doll take into account when arriving at his conclusions? How many instances of planet Earth are we now studying, and in how many of those instances has not a gram of fossil fuel ever been burnt, and in how many instances are global temperatures agreed to be stable or falling?
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
Mr. Dancer, correlation between two variables is indicative of some mechanism connecting the two variables. The correlation may be due to a common cause, as in your example, or one may be the cause of the other, as in the smoking/cancer relationship. In the case of the CO2/temperature correlation, an obvious and demonstrated mechanism for correlation is the insulating effect of CO2 arising from its radiative properties.
The 2008/2009 "great recession" was the worst output drop in the UK since the 1930s. I don't think we should be using that as our compare.
I think it's reasonable given the hysteria that has been attached to Brexit.
A mild contraction from a start point of record employment, grossly inflated house prices in London/South, record trade deficit, record migration etc isn't the end of the world.
It is also noticeable that the sentiment indices say one thing - while other indicators are tending to disagree.
He wanted to ‘harness the talents of everyone’. What? Even Hilary Benn? Apparently. ‘I have an ability to very conveniently forget things MPs have said,’ he explained. Oh, and he wanted them all to submit themselves to re-selection by local activists. Ouch.
‘This party is going places!’ he said, thumping his lectern. ‘This party is strong! It is going to win the general election!’
There was little sense of Mr Corbyn needing to be buttressed by a Praetorian guard. I’d say his mood is pretty chipper and that he is confident he will win this contest.
Then again, it's based on two weeks eight days worth of data in the immediate aftermath of the biggest political shock in the nation's history since Germany invaded Poland.
Yes considering the context I don't think it is too bad, and the rapid formation of a new government should give a boost.
I think even next month's data would be a much better steer. Most businesses will have completed their post-Brexit planning (for many the answer will be no change, of course).
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
My issue with all the hoop-la is simply this. We have an excellent environmental record. Our energy consumption has dropped by 13% in the last decade. Our domestic energy consumption has dropped by 27% since 2000.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
Mr. Dancer, correlation between two variables is indicative of some mechanism connecting the two variables. The correlation may be due to a common cause, as in your example, or one may be the cause of the other, as in the smoking/cancer relationship. In the case of the CO2/temperature correlation, an obvious and demonstrated mechanism for correlation is the insulating effect of CO2 arising from its radiative properties.
Just because something is obvious doesn't necessarily make it true.
The 2008/2009 "great recession" was the worst output drop in the UK since the 1930s. I don't think we should be using that as our compare.
I think it's reasonable given the hysteria that has been attached to Brexit.
A mild contraction from a start point of record employment, grossly inflated house prices in London/South, record trade deficit, record migration etc isn't the end of the world.
It is also noticeable that the sentiment indices say one thing - while other indicators are tending to disagree.
TBH, I would be very surprised if we didn't see some negative impact in the neat term. The question is the ability of the new government to put in place a framework for our new relationship with the EU as soon as possible. Uncertainty, above all else, is bad for business.
Mr. Enjineeya, but correlation may or may not be indicative of causation between the two variables, so it can't be used as evidence thereof.
As for carbon dioxide, I'm not persuaded that scientists have a firm enough grasp of the complicated system that is our planet's climate to be confident in their predictions. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, reckoned that by the end of the 21st century the only habitable [by humans] landmass would be Antarctica. Other scientists claimed that snow would become an incredibly rare thing that children would need to learn about because they'd never experience it.
The climate has always, and will always change. The portents of doom don't concern me.
Worth noting there's substantial overlap between what we should do with or without warmery (more energy efficient technology is always positive, and some renewables, especially geothermal, are well worth development).
Anyway, I have procrastinated enough. Time to be productive. Or possibly time to remember first practice is underway.
The 2008/2009 "great recession" was the worst output drop in the UK since the 1930s. I don't think we should be using that as our compare.
I think it's reasonable given the hysteria that has been attached to Brexit.
A mild contraction from a start point of record employment, grossly inflated house prices in London/South, record trade deficit, record migration etc isn't the end of the world.
It is also noticeable that the sentiment indices say one thing - while other indicators are tending to disagree.
TBH, I would be very surprised if we didn't see some negative impact in the neat term. The question is the ability of the new government to put in place a framework for our new relationship with the EU as soon as possible. Uncertainty, above all else, is bad for business.
I'm even less sanguine. Delivering a road map for a practical Brexit reduces the uncertainty on one level, but the global picture is cloudy at best.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
Mr. Dancer, correlation between two variables is indicative of some mechanism connecting the two variables. The correlation may be due to a common cause, as in your example, or one may be the cause of the other, as in the smoking/cancer relationship. In the case of the CO2/temperature correlation, an obvious and demonstrated mechanism for correlation is the insulating effect of CO2 arising from its radiative properties.
Just because something is obvious doesn't necessarily make it true.
but in general a sensible analysis would require a pretty good reason to discount the most obvious explanation, especially one with a demonstrated mechanism
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
There was a very lengthy blog post about Twitter that was linked on here several months ago which I found very illuminating, essentially highlighting that the creators, investors and managers of Twitter were riding a wave but seemed to have no real conception of why people use the service, what they use it for or how to effectively monetize it.
I don't use it myself, but I can see how seemingly ubiquitous it has become in a short space of time for dissemination of all sorts of media, but it was a real eye opener on how it might be built on more quicksand that many realise.
Some talk of Trump pivoting on some points to appeal to new areas - the problem surely will be can he get the people he wants to pivot to to listen to him? Not everything Corbyn says is bad, but plenty won't listen to those bits because of what he has long said on the others. Tories come up with some good ideas sometimes, but when people know it is a Tory idea some will never even consider it. And so on and so on.
Correction, they are now committed to be there until 2018. I know it's not as fluid as Football, where you sign a 4 year deal, get sacked a year later and paid for the full 4 years to avoid causing a fuss, but deals can be superseded by events.
Then again, it's based on two weeks eight days worth of data in the immediate aftermath of the biggest political shock in the nation's history since Germany invaded Poland.
Yes considering the context I don't think it is too bad, and the rapid formation of a new government should give a boost.
I think even next month's data would be a much better steer. Most businesses will have completed their post-Brexit planning (for many the answer will be no change, of course).
We won't get any 'hard' data (ie actual output, not surveys) for July for some time yet, and for August not until well into September.
The high frequency financial indicators are key, as firms' sentiment is I think strongly affected by these. So far, the outcomes for most of these (stocks, credit spreads) are not too bad at all (and the FX drop is a net economic positive). That may yet change of course - but perhaps due more to global than national factors.
There was a very lengthy blog post about Twitter that was linked on here several months ago which I found very illuminating, essentially highlighting that the creators, investors and managers of Twitter were riding a wave but seemed to have no real conception of why people use the service, what they use it for or how to effectively monetize it.
I don't use it myself, but I can see how seemingly ubiquitous it has become in a short space of time for dissemination of all sorts of media, but it was a real eye opener on how it might be built on more quicksand that many realise.
From zero advertising for all the years I've used it - to a lot of advertising in the last three months seems to show that they've changed their model substantially. The ads don't require me to watch them first - they appear as a simple tweet like any of others I get. If they catch my eye, I watch them.
And I don't mind the adverts, often they're funny or for things I support - so I share them. Sharing adverts? That's never a bad thing. Off the top of my head - this week I've forwarded video ones from Cat Protection, the Halifax Top Cat out-takes and an insurance firm using urban myths as a hook.
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
Jane Merrick joins Labour, pays an extra £25 and her preferred candidate Eagles drops out...
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
There was a very lengthy blog post about Twitter that was linked on here several months ago which I found very illuminating, essentially highlighting that the creators, investors and managers of Twitter were riding a wave but seemed to have no real conception of why people use the service, what they use it for or how to effectively monetize it.
I don't use it myself, but I can see how seemingly ubiquitous it has become in a short space of time for dissemination of all sorts of media, but it was a real eye opener on how it might be built on more quicksand that many realise.
From zero advertising for all the years I've used it - to a lot of advertising in the last three months seems to show that they've changed their model substantially. The ads don't require me to watch them first - they appear as a simple tweet like any of others I get. If they catch my eye, I watch them.
And I don't mind the adverts, often they're funny or for things I support - so I share them. Sharing adverts? That's never a bad thing. Off the top of my head - this week I've forwarded video ones from Cat Protection, the Halifax Top Cat out-takes and an insurance firm using urban myths as a hook.
I don't like FaceSpace at all.
Sharing adverts "never a bad thing"? Not even an advert for a criminal or otherwise abusive activity?
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the City of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Jane Merrick joins Labour, pays an extra £25 and her preferred candidate Eagles drops out...
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
There was a very lengthy blog post about Twitter that was linked on here several months ago which I found very illuminating, essentially highlighting that the creators, investors and managers of Twitter were riding a wave but seemed to have no real conception of why people use the service, what they use it for or how to effectively monetize it.
I don't use it myself, but I can see how seemingly ubiquitous it has become in a short space of time for dissemination of all sorts of media, but it was a real eye opener on how it might be built on more quicksand that many realise.
From zero advertising for all the years I've used it - to a lot of advertising in the last three months seems to show that they've changed their model substantially. The ads don't require me to watch them first - they appear as a simple tweet like any of others I get. If they catch my eye, I watch them.
And I don't mind the adverts, often they're funny or for things I support - so I share them. Sharing adverts? That's never a bad thing. Off the top of my head - this week I've forwarded video ones from Cat Protection, the Halifax Top Cat out-takes and an insurance firm using urban myths as a hook.
I don't like FaceSpace at all.
Sharing adverts "never a bad thing"? Not even an advert for a criminal or otherwise abusive activity?
It's a turn of phrase. It's idiom. She clearly didn't mean that.
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Jane Merrick joins Labour, pays an extra £25 and her preferred candidate Eagles drops out...
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
Jane Merrick joins Labour, pays an extra £25 and her preferred candidate Eagles drops out...
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
There was a very lengthy blog post about Twitter that was linked on here several months ago which I found very illuminating, essentially highlighting that the creators, investors and managers of Twitter were riding a wave but seemed to have no real conception of why people use the service, what they use it for or how to effectively monetize it.
I don't use it myself, but I can see how seemingly ubiquitous it has become in a short space of time for dissemination of all sorts of media, but it was a real eye opener on how it might be built on more quicksand that many realise.
From zero advertising for all the years I've used it - to a lot of advertising in the last three months seems to show that they've changed their model substantially. The ads don't require me to watch them first - they appear as a simple tweet like any of others I get. If they catch my eye, I watch them.
And I don't mind the adverts, often they're funny or for things I support - so I share them. Sharing adverts? That's never a bad thing. Off the top of my head - this week I've forwarded video ones from Cat Protection, the Halifax Top Cat out-takes and an insurance firm using urban myths as a hook.
I don't like FaceSpace at all.
Sharing adverts "never a bad thing"? Not even an advert for a criminal or otherwise abusive activity?
It's a turn of phrase. It's idiom. She clearly didn't mean that.
Oh well if she says things she doesn't mean she's certainly in the right place
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Let's hope they remember that when they lose their job, or benefits are cut, or the NHS is worse. They won't of course.
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Good for them. That's not the campaign Leave ran though. They explicitly said things would get better. Even Boris when he was trying to throw the result used the Nike Tick analogy.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Sanders is also wrong. Actually the real cause of instability in the Middle east goes back to Sykes-Picot.
Always good to find a reason to blame the French
But why is it always good? Probably because it confirms what we already know - when you look close enough, most of the problems in Europe over the last 900 years or so have been caused by the French.
Indeed I suggest my last two posts are linked - the fact that Labour is doing better than its shambles deserves is a direct result of people's desperation at the rising inequality in the economy and the fact that (apart from a few warm words from May) no-one is really doing anything about it.
Corbyn is therefore the last hope for a lot of particularly younger and poorer voters.
The rich are jsut stuffing their pockets full till it blows up. Not hard to see the Tories getting a bloody nose at next election.
From whom?
From the public, who else votes or are you expecting aliens to land.
Yes, but who are they going to vote for? Corbyn's Labour?
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
The disaster of Brexit in political terms isn't that Brexit will be a disaster. It won't be a disaster. It's that for a huge chunk of voters very little will change from a status quo ante they find intolerable. What little change there is for them will make the status quo ante mildly worse. What economic benefits from the new more open and globally facing post Brexit model will be hoovered up by the tiny number of freer market Brexiters who are hugely over represented on here. And curiously Remainia. Graduate dense enclaves like Cambridge and the Citype of Manchester are going to be just fine. It's what happens in 10 years time when the initial economic shock has long past but the new type of trend growth has kicked in and most Leave voters find their socio economic concerns are mildly worse.
Radio 4 interviewed some working class Leave voters yesterday who said they were prepared to see some loss of prosperity to regain sovereignty, remember many of them had little to lose anyway unlike wealthier Remainers
Indeed. I think most people made a judgement that whilst the threats from REMAIN were clearly OTT, Brexit wasn't a pain-free option but, on balance and taking a long term view, LEAVE would be better than REMAIN, especially for people who have very little to lose in the short term anyway.
Mr. Max, I agree. There are economic concerns in the short term and poor PMI data shouldn't be ignored or go unreported, but sentiment also affects markets and consumer confidence, and media should behave responsibly.
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
I suspect Hilary’s choice of running mate might well make a difference.
She will also run on not being Trump.
Neither candidate is much cop. But Trump is a racist and has stated he will not honour US treaty obligations. There is only one sane choice.
Hillary will pick Kaine probably who might help in Virginia and that state could be vital. After Trump's speech last night I can see him winning Ohio and North Carolina and Florida and maybe Pennsylvania and NH too which would mean Hillary has to win Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and Virginia
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
It's amusing that now Eagle has gone, the view that she was the answer is starting to emerge. Eagle was equally dire. The most interesting thing she said during her entire campaign turned out to be a microphone test.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Sanders is also wrong. Actually the real cause of instability in the Middle east goes back to Sykes-Picot.
Always good to find a reason to blame the French
But why is it always good? Probably because it confirms what we already know - when you look close enough, most of the problems in Europe over the last 900 years or so have been caused by the French.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Although the Tories probably would not have gone to the country with Cameron as leader as he would have been beaten by Brown in 2007.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
That's all true except it's actually worse than that for Labour - because they simultaneously still have a large chunk of the identity politics left wing vote, that would be lost if they started playing up their patriotism/ignoring transgenderism etc. There is competition for those votes on the left now, from Greens particularly. If Labour went for someone like John Mann for example, who would appeal to the traditional voters you describe, they would lose a huge chunk of youthful/progressive votes. That in itself may not cost them many seats as the numbers of voters are small, but it would wipe out their activist base. Labour's ground game may not have been enough at the last election but it still makes a big difference for them.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Mr. Enjineeya, correlation isn't indicative. You can't tell if X is affecting Y, if Y is affecting X, or if a third factor, Z, is driving both.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
My issue with all the hoop-la is simply this. We have an excellent environmental record. Our energy consumption has dropped by 13% in the last decade. Our domestic energy consumption has dropped by 27% since 2000.
I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
Amen.
The reduction's mainly due to legislation 'unfairly imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels' (as Farage et al would put it). Actually, this entirely stems from legislation and procedures that the Council of Ministers voluntarily signed up to, but I digress.
A lot of environmental legislation has taken the form of EU directives. One must hope the UK stays in the Single Market and has to meet EU legislation on traded consumer goods.
The decline in electricity consumption since 2006 took even DECC by surprise, showing Sir Humphrey was pretty out of touch with what was being done at EU level. It doesn't inspire confidence. In this respect, we've been better governed by Brussels than we would have been by Whitehall.
Mr. Max, I agree. There are economic concerns in the short term and poor PMI data shouldn't be ignored or go unreported, but sentiment also affects markets and consumer confidence, and media should behave responsibly.
Well 8 days of data is not nearly enough evidence to make such conclusive statements. We'll only really know the true picture around October to December.
The trouble with this Labour election is that Owen Smith isn't very good. It's like the party is rerunning the AV referendum.
Yes, Smith's totally useless.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
In a vote among Labour members someone who supported the Iraq war is guaranteed defeat. It's as simple as that. That alone makes Smith a better choice than Eagle. A general election is clearly a different matter, of course. If Labour MPs were picking a candidate to give the party the best chance in front of normal voters neither Smith nor Eagle would be on the ballot.
But as was commented earlier this week the divorce between each level of Labour is such that anyone who will win the vote in a particular section (MPs, members) isn't the person who would help them win with voters...
I was almost right in my grisly forecast last night. 2,977 migrants drowned so far this year. We have got to stop this. At this rate it'll be worse than 9/11.
PJ O'Rourke has cornered this market with his justification for voting for Hillary. " She's wrong about everything but she wrong within the normal parameters. "
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
Sounds like the LibDems. Maybe there is hope for them yet.
Jane Merrick joins Labour, pays an extra £25 and her preferred candidate Eagles drops out...
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
I like Jane. I'm pleased she's found post Independent work.
From the article:
"At a rally on Wednesday night, Corbyn shared a platform with the former Labour MP Chris Williamson who declared that many Labour MPs are Lynton Crosby “sleepers” who've been activated to cause Labour “civil war”. By legitimising such offensive and bizarre conspiracy theories, Corbyn breathes life into a monster I thought Kinnock had slayed three decades ago."
As an E Midlander I have seen Williamson speak a couple of times and on local TV. He was Derby MP. He always came across as reasonably level-headed, so I left assuming that he has seen where the wind blows with next seat selection process and jumped off at the deep end.
Labour has won elections where it has confidently stood up for the economic and social interests of the traditional working class.
In 1945, that was about the creation of a welfare state. In 1964-1966 it was about a brighter and fairer economic future, and in 1997 about investment in schools and hospitals and a bit more help for those on lower incomes.
In all cases, it was about understanding the economic difficulties of those on low-average incomes and delivering on improving their quality of life through state action - higher wages, secure jobs and public services. However, these same voters have always been proud of their families, communities, identity and country. "Old" Labour started to diverge from this path in the late 70s/early 80s and the gap seems to have widened since (not that it made a difference in 1997 because Blair won a decent chunk of the middle classes, but turnout was down)
The modern Labour Party really doesn't understand this. As long as wrinkles its nose at the English flag, thinks the next big fight is Transgenderism and competes internally to see who can argue for the admittance of the most refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and thinks the EU is a shrine to be worshipped, it is going nowhere.
That's all true except it's actually worse than that for Labour - because they simultaneously still have a large chunk of the identity politics left wing vote, that would be lost if they started playing up their patriotism/ignoring transgenderism etc. There is competition for those votes on the left now, from Greens particularly. If Labour went for someone like John Mann for example, who would appeal to the traditional voters you describe, they would lose a huge chunk of youthful/progressive votes. That in itself may not cost them many seats as the numbers of voters are small, but it would wipe out their activist base. Labour's ground game may not have been enough at the last election but it still makes a big difference for them.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
Ed Balls is the answer. Bruiser who can both appeal to the members and unions, but gets free movement and WWC economic challenges too.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Although the Tories probably would not have gone to the country with Cameron as leader as he would have been beaten by Brown in 2007.
I seriously doubt it, I think an election in 2007 would have ended exactly like 2010, the public not wanting Labour but also not convinced by the Tories. Remember Brown got spooked by the polls and bottled it for a reason. Also given how this referendum just went, the Tories were the only party promising a referendum on Lisbon which would have won them a lot of votes.
EDIT: Perhaps start by figuring an answer to these questions 1: What does your vision of what Labour stands for? 2: How is it paid for?
As noted by Phil Collins in The Times, if 172 Labour MPs declare themselves a new party, they get the official opposition's Short money. And a few Unions would probably jump on board.
So that? I thought the party needed 150,000 votes at the last election which, by definition, they wouldn't have
Mr. Max, I agree. There are economic concerns in the short term and poor PMI data shouldn't be ignored or go unreported, but sentiment also affects markets and consumer confidence, and media should behave responsibly.
Well 8 days of data is not nearly enough evidence to make such conclusive statements. We'll only really know the true picture around October to December.
The first wholly post-EUref data comes on 16th August. But there will still be data coming through afterwards that includes pre-EUref. I think we'll have completed the first cycle by end of October.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Yes, in reality I think Labour would have dropped 50-60 seats in a snap 2007 election.
He'd probably have tried to do the dirty with the LDs (a reverse 2010 coalition, if you like) but I think that would have ended in tears.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Yes, in reality I think Labour would have dropped 50-60 seats in a snap 2007 election.
He'd probably have tried to do the dirty with the LDs (a reverse 2010 coalition, if you like) but I think that would have ended in tears.
I think the Jack Dorsey comment is more apposite. For those who have a life, he's the founder/inventor of Twitter.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
I'm far from convinced Brown would have won reelection in 2012, though.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
Well there's no guarantee he would have won in 2007. He got spooked for a reason, iirc there was a poll which put the Tories 8 points up in the aftermath of conference season.
Labour's lead dropped from around 10 points after their conference to around 4 points after the Tory conference. The eight point Tory lead came a few weeks later - probably assisted by Brown's dithering.
Afraid the Lab leadership won't be a long term annual event, since the party faces an existential visit to the voters in 2020. They may well rise up and put it out of its misery.
Labour are yet to address their near death in Scotland. Will the North go before Wales and leave London as the last stronghold?
Sean F is probably right - 20% vote positively for a left wing party and 5-10% voting Labour out of habit./loyalty. Gives Labour a core vote of 25-30% even under Corbyn. It is not going to disappear.
Labour lost its vote in Scotland to a party further to the left so it is not a situation that is likely to repeat in the north, Wales or London.
Much as I oppose Corbyn I can't see Labour getting less than 100 seats in 2020 whatever happens. So who else is going to beat that to become the official opposition? SNP can't, Lib Dems will probably go back up to about 50 seats at the Tories expense. So that leaves UKIP and I just can't see them getting more than a handful of seats post Brexit.
How credible is it to suggest that the SNP is genuinely further left than Labour? Its core vote was in rural places like Angus and the like. And they have hoovered up many who a few decades back used to vote Tory in Scotland. And on the economy I don't see any evidence of significant left-wingness? OK they are against Trident and have a few other nominally left-wing positions, but so do the LibDems.
The SNP were left of New Labour but Corbyn Labour is left of the SNP
Sounds like the LibDems. Maybe there is hope for them yet.
Only Charles Kennedy LDs and the SNP have nationalism too unlike New Labour
Comments
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 10h10 hours ago
A time traveller wanting to defeat the Tories has two options: persuade Brown to hold election in 2007 or kill Jack Dorsey in 2005.
Ice-cream sales have a strong correlation with drownings. Ice-cream does not cause drowning. Drowning does not cause ice-cream. Sunny weather increase ice-cream sales and the number of people who go swimming, which raises the number of drowning deaths.
Pretty mild. The Context - Services 2009: 40.1
It's pretty depressing reading, tbh.
The whole thing is worth reading.
Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBT community. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. To protect us from terrorism, we need to focus on three things.
We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror.
and then
"This Administration has failed America’s inner cities. It’s failed them on education. It’s failed them on jobs. It’s failed them on crime. It’s failed them at every level.
When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America?"
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974#ixzz4F7oTsNQE
We do need to see several months of data before we start making conclusions.
Manufacturing 34.4 (2009)
two weekseight days worth of data in the immediate aftermath of the biggest political shock in the nation's history since Germany invaded Poland.I fully accept AGW, but CO2 output is dominated by large countries. As of 2011, we produced 6% of China's output. That ratio has indisputably fallen since. Globally, we're responsible for less than 2% of emissions.
We can do our part of course, but there is no reason to put the UK economy on the cross to satisfy our need to be loved by Twitter.
The Tories don't because the right is not " progressive " or the Tories always change just enough for survival.
I don't accept the higher level proposition that if I accept that there is any link between smoking and lung cancer, then I also accept that correlation implies causation. It is logical fallacy 101 on here this morning.
Here is something else to think about: how many instances of smokers, non-smokers, lung cancer sufferers and non lung cancer sufferers did Doll take into account when arriving at his conclusions? How many instances of planet Earth are we now studying, and in how many of those instances has not a gram of fossil fuel ever been burnt, and in how many instances are global temperatures agreed to be stable or falling?
A mild contraction from a start point of record employment, grossly inflated house prices in London/South, record trade deficit, record migration etc isn't the end of the world.
It is also noticeable that the sentiment indices say one thing - while other indicators are tending to disagree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36854627
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-recruitment-idUKKCN0ZX0D9
He wanted to ‘harness the talents of everyone’. What? Even Hilary Benn? Apparently. ‘I have an ability to very conveniently forget things MPs have said,’ he explained. Oh, and he wanted them all to submit themselves to re-selection by local activists. Ouch.
‘This party is going places!’ he said, thumping his lectern. ‘This party is strong! It is going to win the general election!’
There was little sense of Mr Corbyn needing to be buttressed by a Praetorian guard. I’d say his mood is pretty chipper and that he is confident he will win this contest.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3702448/His-activist-aquamarine-hair-nose-rivets-tattoo-QUENTIN-LETTS-Labour-leader-s-bid-er-Labour-leadership.html#ixzz4F7rWe7gL
Mr. Max/M, cheers. I rather like Twitter, but it does have some flaws which I hope can be addressed. Far better Twitter than Faceborg.
TBH, I would be very surprised if we didn't see some negative impact in the neat term. The question is the ability of the new government to put in place a framework for our new relationship with the EU as soon as possible. Uncertainty, above all else, is bad for business.
As for carbon dioxide, I'm not persuaded that scientists have a firm enough grasp of the complicated system that is our planet's climate to be confident in their predictions. The Chief Scientific Officer, about a decade ago, reckoned that by the end of the 21st century the only habitable [by humans] landmass would be Antarctica. Other scientists claimed that snow would become an incredibly rare thing that children would need to learn about because they'd never experience it.
The climate has always, and will always change. The portents of doom don't concern me.
Worth noting there's substantial overlap between what we should do with or without warmery (more energy efficient technology is always positive, and some renewables, especially geothermal, are well worth development).
Anyway, I have procrastinated enough. Time to be productive. Or possibly time to remember first practice is underway.
I think Angela Eagle would have been a stronger candidate. She appears more 'genuine' and would have gotten extra votes for being a woman.
Smith just looks totally fake.
"Enter Donald Trump. He is the man for these times. His speech didn't bother with niceties - he never suggested that his opponent is an honourable woman. That's a reasonable omission: Hillary's own list of lies rival Nixon's. But Trump only found time to be nice about two people. Himself and you. "Let me be your voice."
...Why not? He has a plane. A hot wife. He builds things. He's not a politician. What's not to like? And much of what he said was right. America has sacrificed its industrial base to import cheap crap from China. There has been a vile campaign against the police. Islamist terrorism is a real problem and must be decapitated. How can Hillary disagree? What will she say?
This is why Trump wins: history has weakened his opponents. The Republican mainstream was undone by Bush, the Democrats by Obama and the politics of identity. All Hillary has to run on is that she's a woman. Seriously, that's it. It's embarrassing to watch her suck up to a gender that doesn't even like particularly her."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/donald-trump-is-the-perfect-candidate-for-todays-debased-and-wou/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36864370
I don't use it myself, but I can see how seemingly ubiquitous it has become in a short space of time for dissemination of all sorts of media, but it was a real eye opener on how it might be built on more quicksand that many realise.
The high frequency financial indicators are key, as firms' sentiment is I think strongly affected by these. So far, the outcomes for most of these (stocks, credit spreads) are not too bad at all (and the FX drop is a net economic positive). That may yet change of course - but perhaps due more to global than national factors.
And I don't mind the adverts, often they're funny or for things I support - so I share them. Sharing adverts? That's never a bad thing. Off the top of my head - this week I've forwarded video ones from Cat Protection, the Halifax Top Cat out-takes and an insurance firm using urban myths as a hook.
I don't like FaceSpace at all.
Neither candidate is much cop. But Trump is a racist and has stated he will not honour US treaty obligations. There is only one sane choice.
Facebook shares on:
-Jeremy Corbyn video urging people to register: 15,600
-Saving Labour video urging the same: 848
"It is said that Smith will lessen the electoral disaster that awaits Labour in 2020 if Corbyn remains as leader, but I am not so sure. I have grudgingly paid my £25, but I cannot vote with any enthusiasm for Smith. MPs have chosen the wrong opponent to challenge the wrong leader. I cannot be the only traditional Labour voter thinking right now: why should I save Labour if it cannot save itself?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/why-should-anyone-want-to-save-labour-when-it-clearly-doesnt-wan/
This is irresponsible headline writing.
Labour would have been in power for over 15 years, and I can't see him as having seriously tackled the deficit reformed welfare, cut the tax burden or restricting immigration.
On the other hand UKIPs rise probably wouldn't have happened because all those votes would have assembled to the Tories to boot Labour out.
I would say they are damned whichever way they go. They can't continue to hemorrhage working class votes but they need those cosmopolitan urban lefties to actually do the hard work. Blair papered over this gap, but that won't work again.
A lot of environmental legislation has taken the form of EU directives. One must hope the UK stays in the Single Market and has to meet EU legislation on traded consumer goods.
The decline in electricity consumption since 2006 took even DECC by surprise, showing Sir Humphrey was pretty out of touch with what was being done at EU level. It doesn't inspire confidence. In this respect, we've been better governed by Brussels than we would have been by Whitehall.
"At a rally on Wednesday night, Corbyn shared a platform with the former Labour MP Chris Williamson who declared that many Labour MPs are Lynton Crosby “sleepers” who've been activated to cause Labour “civil war”. By legitimising such offensive and bizarre conspiracy theories, Corbyn breathes life into a monster I thought Kinnock had slayed three decades ago."
As an E Midlander I have seen Williamson speak a couple of times and on local TV. He was Derby MP. He always came across as reasonably level-headed, so I left assuming that he has seen where the wind blows with next seat selection process and jumped off at the deep end.
This is in no way connected to my bet at 66/1 for him to be next Labour leader.
He'd probably have tried to do the dirty with the LDs (a reverse 2010 coalition, if you like) but I think that would have ended in tears.
http://tinyurl.com/jsp646r
Labour's lead dropped from around 10 points after their conference to around 4 points after the Tory conference. The eight point Tory lead came a few weeks later - probably assisted by Brown's dithering.